HV 


REPORT 


OF 


CHARLES  H.  STRONG 

Commissioner  to  Examine  into  the  Management  and 

Affairs  of  the   State    Board    of  Charities,    the 

Fiscal  Supervisor  and  Certain  Related 

Boards  and  Commissions 


TO 


GOVERNOR  WHITMAN 


REPORT 


OF 


CHARLES  H- 

Commissioner   to   Examine   into   the  Management  and  Affairs  of  the 

State  Board  of  Charities,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  Certain 

Related  Boards  and   Commissions 


TCI  ; 


GOVERNOR  WHITMAN 


DOCUMENTS 
SEPT. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGES 

Foreword 5-8 

An  Historical  Outline 8-16 

Multiplicity  of  Control  and  Division  of  Responsibility 16-22 

State  Board  of  Charities 22-47 

Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities 47-62 

Salary  Classification  Commission. .  .- ; 62-68 

Building  Improvement  Commission . . 68-70 

Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds  and  Buildings 70-73 

Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble  Minded,  etc 73-76 

State  Board  of  Charities  and  Private  Institutions  for  Children 

in  New  York  City 76-127 

State  Board  of  Charities  and  Hospitals  and  Dispensaries  in 

New  York  City 127-129 

Infant  Mortality  in  Private  Foundling  or  Infant  Asylums 129-131 

Conclusions  : 

Private  Institutions  in  New  York  City \ 132 

A  New  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children 132 

Extension  of  Supervision  of  State  Board  of  Charities  Over 
All  Charitable  Institutions,  Whether  or  Not  in  Receipt  of 
Public  Aid 133 

State   Board   of   Charities   and    Reformatories    for    Adult 

Women 134 

State  Care  for  Adult  Female  Delinquents 134 

A  New  Institution  for  Defective  Delinquents 135 

A  New  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency 136-143 

A  Reorganization  of  the  State  Charitable  System 143-165 

Recommendations 165-168 

Chart  Showing  Present  Plan  of  State  Administration 169 

Chart  Showing  Suggested  Plan  of  State  Administration 170 


M69195 


REPORT  OF  CHARLES  H.  STRONG 

Commissioner  to  Examine  into  the  Management  and  Affairs 

of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 

and  certain  related  boards  and  commissions 


HONORABLE  CHARLES  S.  WHITMAN, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

SIR:— 


On  the  18th  day  of  November,  1915,  there  issued  to  me  a  commission 
executed  by  the  Governor,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Executive  Law,  Section  8  (the  Moreland  Act).  In  this  commission  I 
was  appointed  "to  examine  and  investigate  the  management  and  affairs 
of  the  Office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities ;  the  State  Board 
of  Charities;  the  Sites,  Buildings  and  Ground  Commission;  the  Build- 
ing Improvement  Commission  and  the  Salary  Classification  Commission, 
the  said  Commissioner  to  report  to  me  with  recommendations  as  may 
seem  fitting  with  regard  to  what  changes,  if  any,  are  advisable  in  the 
Laws  of  this  State,  relating  to  or  affecting  the  several  departments  of  the 
State  under  investigation." 

On  the  same  day,  the  Governor  transmitted  to  me  a  letter  as  follows : 

"It  having  become  increasingly  evident  to  me  that  the  manage- 
ment of  the  State  charitable  institutions  is  unnecessarily  and  unfor- 
tunately complicated  and  that  responsibility  is  divided  between  too 
many  offices  and  departments,  resulting  in  confusion  and  delay,  I, 
therefore,  hereby  appoint  you  under  the  provisions  of  Section  8  of 
the  Executive  Law,  known  as  the  Moreland  Act,  as  a  Commissioner 
to  make  a  careful  and  thorough  inquiry  into  all  features  of  the 
work  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities,  State  Board  of 
Charities,  the  Sites,  Buildings  and  Grounds  Commission,  the  Build- 
ings Improvement  Commission  and  the  Salary  Classification  Com- 
mission, for  the  purpose  of  recommending  to  me  at  as  early  a  date 
as  practicable  what  changes,  if  any,  should  be  made  in  the  laws 
relating  to  the  work  of  these  several  authorities. 


I  transmit  herewith  a  communication  received  by  me  from  the 
Acting  Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York,  Hon.  George  McAneny, 
transmitting  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Public 
Charities  of  that  city  for  the  year  1914,  in  which  the  statement 
is  made  that  the  reports  oi  inspections  made  by  the  State  Board 
of  Charities  of  institutions  receiving  public  funds  in  the  city  of 
New  York  are  widely  at  variance  with  the  findings  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  City  Department  in  relation  to  those  institutions 
and  that  certain  of  those  institutions  which  have  received  the 
certificate  of  approval  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  have  been 
found  to  be  actually  in  an  unfit  condition  to  provide  proper  care 
ioi  the  children  heretofore  sent  to  them. 

As  a  part  of  the  inquiry  which  you  are  hereinabove  requested 
to  make,  you  will  please  make  careful  inquiry  as  to  the  matters 
referred  to  by  the  Acting  Mayor." 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  alone,  of  the  parties  named  in  the 
Governor's  commission,  appeared  before  me  and  asked  to  be  represented 
by  counsel.  At  the  first  hearing  John  M.  Bowers,  Esq.,  oi  New  York 
City,  appeared  on  behalf  of  said  State  Board.  He  said,  in  part : 

"I  am  directed  by  these  gentlemen  to  say  that  the  State  Board 
of  Charities  is  fully  in  accord  with  the  investigation  directed  by 
the  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  be  made  by  you.  They 
deem  it  of  great  value  to  the  people  of  the  State,  and  offer  their 
assistance  to  the  fullest  extent  in  such  investigation.  Except  for 
the  fact  that  in  the  letter  of  the  Governor  enclosing  your  appoint- 
ment to  make  the  investigation,  the  Governor  refers  to  a  com- 
munication from  the  Acting  Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York 
transmitting  a  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Charities  of 
that  city  for  the  year  1914,  making  charges  affecting  the  State 
Board  of  Charities  and  directs  that  as  part  of  the  inquiry  to  be 
made,  you  make  careful  inquiry  into  such  charges,  the  State 
Board  of  Charities  would  not  have  felt  it  necessary  or  proper  that 
they  should  ask  the  aid  of  counsel. 

This  inquiry,  of  course,  necessitates  determination  by  the  Com- 
missioner as  to  the  truth  of  the  charges  made  by  the  Commissioner 
of  Charities,  and  following  the  usual  course  of  procedure,  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  appreciates  that  the  Commissioner  of 


Charities  will  be  given  the  fullest  opportunity  of  substantiating 
his  charges  and  this  Board  the  same  opportunity  to  meet  them. 

******** 

The  Board  has  consistently  exercised  the  powers  conferred 
upon  it,  so  as  to  build  up  the  character  of  the  structures  and 
character  of  the  management  of  the  different  charitable  insti- 
tutions in  the  state,  and  believes  that  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  of  1894,  there  has  been  a  continued  general  improve- 
ment in  the  character  of  the  structures  and  character  of  the 
management  of  the  charitable  institutions  throughout  the  state  of 
very  great  proportions. 

It  follows  that  the  Board  in  exercising  the  important  powers 
devolved  upon  it,  must  have  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  the 
State. 

It,  therefore,  desires  the  utmost  investigation  of  the  truth  of 
the  charges  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Charities  in  the  City 
of  New  York,  to  the  end  that  the  Governor  and  people  of  the 
State  may  be  fully  advised  as  to  whether  the  members  of  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  have  done  everything  within  their  power 
to  improve  the  condition  and  management  of  the  charitable  insti- 
tutions of  the  State." 

Within  a  few  days  of  my  appointment  I  entered  upon  the  discharge 
of  my  duties  under  the  commission.  I  retained  John  Kirkland  Clark, 
Esq.,  formerly  an  assistant  district  attorney  in  New  York  County,  to 
assist  me.  The  work  fell  into  two  divisions :  the  inquiry  into  the  state 
laws,  departments  and  institutions,  and  the  inquiry  into  the  inspections 
by  the  State  Board  of  Charities  of  private  institutions  receiving  aid 
from  the  City  of  New  York. 

The  first  public  hearing  was  held  at  the  Capitol  in  Albany  on  De- 
cember 9,  1915.  Further  public  hearings  were  held  at  Albany  and  in 
New  York  City  upon  the  first  or  state-wide  branch  of  the  inquiry 
until  the  28th  day  of  January,  1916.  Thereupon  public  hearings  upon 
the  second  or  local  branch  of  the  inquiry  were  begun  and  continued 
with  little  intermission  until  the  24th  day  of  April,  1916. 

At  the  opening  session  of  the  hearings  upon  the  controversy  over 
the  state  inspections  of  private  institutions,  the  City  of  New  York, 
through  its  Department  of  Public  Charities,  of  which  John  A.  Kings- 


8 

bury  was  Commissioner,  was  represented  by  William  H.  Hotchkiss,  Esq., 
specially  retained  by  the  Corporation  Counsel. 

There  are  15  volumes  of  the  testimony,  amounting  to  nearly  9,000 
pages  and  over  900  exhibits,  including  the  material  submitted  to  the 
last  constitutional  convention  and  extensive  information  as  to  charities 
systems  in  all  the  other  states  of  the  Union  and  in  Great  Britain. 

I  have  personally  visited  nearly  all  of  the  state  institutions  and  some 
of  the  private  institutions,  time  limitations  alone  preventing  more  visits. 
I  have  also  made  a  personal  inspection  of  some  of  the  institutions  in 
Massachusetts  and  conferred  with  many  heads  of  departments  and  ex- 
perts in  that  commonwealth. 

An  Historical  Outline. 

The  Utica  State  Hospital,  opened  in  1843,  is  the  oldest  state  insti- 
tution in  New  York.  It  was  followed  by  the  Western  House  of  Refuge 
for  Juvenile  Delinquents,  now  the  State  Agricultural  and  Industrial 
School  at  Rochester,  in  1849,  and  the  Asylum  for  Idiots,  now  the  State 
Institution  for  Feeble-minded  Children,  at  Syracuse,  in  1851,  the  first 
of  its  kind  in  this  country.  The  New  York  House  of  Refuge,  Ran- 
dall's Island,  an  institution  for  delinquent  boys,  also  the  first  of  the 
kind  in  the  United  States,  was  opened  in  1825,  but  is  under  private 
management,  receiving,  however,  state  aid.  In  1857  there  were,  in  addi- 
tion to  these  institutions,  poorhouses,  almshouses,  orphan  asylums,  lunatic 
asylums,  asylums  for  deaf  mutes  and  the  blind,  hospitals,  jails  and 
penitentiaries. 

A  select  committee  of  the  senate,  Mark  Spencer,  chairman,  in  1857, 
reported  its  "conviction  of  the  necessity  of  providing  by  law  for  a  more 
efficient  and  constant  supervision  of  all  the  charitable  and  reformatory 
institutions  which  participate  in  the  public  bounty  or  are  supported  by 
taxation;  and  a  commission  of  well  qualified  persons  to  be  appointed  by 
the  governor  and  senate,  with  such  arrangement  of  the  terms  of  ser- 
vice as  will  constantly  secure  experience,  appears  to  be  the  best  mode 
of  effecting  the  purpose." 

This  proposal  did  not,  however,  assume  the  form  of  law  until  1867, 
when  New  York  became  the  third  of  the  states  to  possess  a  State 
Board  of  Charities.  Massachusetts  had  led  the  way  in  1863,  followed 
by  Ohio  earlier  in  1867. 


The  board  was  first  called  the  "Board  of  State  Commissioners  of 
Public  Chanties"  and  upon  it  was  conferred  the  power  to  visit  all 
charitable  institutions,  except  prisons,  receiving  state  aid,  and  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  appropriations  therefor  were  economically  and  judi- 
ciously expended,  to  examine  the  condition  of  the  institutions  financially 
and  to  ascertain  whether  the  objects  of  the  several  institutions  were 
accomplished,  etc.  Gov.  Fenton  called  it  "the  power  of  visitation  and 
supervision  over  all  public  charities"  (Message  of  1868).  The  mem- 
bers then,  as  now,  were  chosen  from  the  judicial  districts  of  the  state 
for  terms  of  eight  years.  They  served  without  compensation  for  ser- 
vices (Laws  of  1867,  C.  951). 

The  state  then  was  making  large  annual  appropriations  to  aid  orphan 
asylums  and  homes  for  friendless,  all  of  which  the  State  Board  in- 
spected, but  private,  municipal  and  county  institutions  not  in  receipt 
of  state  aid,  were  not  thus  inspected  until  1873.  In  that  year  this 
power  of  inspection  was  conferred  upon  the  Board.  Its  name  was  then 
changed  to  the  "State  Board  of  Charities"  (L.  18735  C.  571). 

An  exclusive  supervision  of  the  institutions  for  the  insane  was  con-  Super 
tinned  by  the  State  Board   from   1867  to   1873.     The  board,  however,  thelni 
recognized  the  need  of  a  special  supervision  over  the  insane,  and  in  the 
act  last  mentioned  there  was  created  the  office  of  State  Commissioner 
in  Lunacy,  who  was  ex-ofhcio  a  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 
He  served  under  the  direction  of  that  board  and  reported  to  it,  was 
paid  annually  a  salary  of  $4,000  and  was  required  to  be  "an  experi- 
enced and  competent  physician."    The  other  members  of  the  State  Board 
retained  their  right  of  supervision. 

In  1874  the  State  Commissioner  in  Lunacy  was  authorized  to  report 
directly  to  the  legislature  (L.  1874,  C.  446). 

In  1882  it  became  apparent  to  a  committee  of  the  senate  (Sen.  Doc. 
68),  that  "the  first  great  need  of  our  state  is  the  appointment  of  a 
Lunacy  Commission  consisting  of  three  or  more  persons  specially  fitted 
for  such  an  important  trust." 

In  1888,  a  committee  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  on  the  care  of 
the  insane  recommended  legislation  creating  a  new  commission,  placing 
their  recommendation  upon  the  ground  that  a  supervisory  body  such  as 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  should  not  exercise  such  executive  powers 
as  seemed  to  them  desirable  with  respect  to  the  institutions  for  the  insane. 


10 

In  1889,  the  legislature  established  the  State  Commission  in  Lunacy. 
The  State  Board  of  Charities,  however,  retained  its  supervisory  powers 
over  the  institutions  for  the  insane.  The  State  Commission  in  Lunacy 
from  the  first  took  the  position  that  the  State  Board  should  not  have  any 
supervision  over  such  institutions.  Three  commissioners  were  appointed 
by  the  Governor,  the  chairman,  a  physician,  to  receive  $5,000  per  annum ; 
the  second  member,  a  lawyer,  to  receive  $3,000  per  annum ;  and  the  third 
member  "a  citizen  of  reputable  character",  to  receive  $10  per  day.  (Laws 
of  1889,  C.  283.) 

In  1890,  the  policy  of  exclusive  state  care  of  the  insane  was  in- 
augurated, involving  removal  of  all  insane  persons  from  county  or 
municipal  institutions.  (Laws  of  1890,  C.  126.)  In  the  same  year, 
additional  powers  were  conferred  upon  the  State  Commission  in  Lunacy 
(Laws  of  1890,  C.  273). 

In  1893,  the  legislature  vested  fiscal  control  in  the  commission  by 
providing  that  no  expenditures  should  be  made  for  maintenance  except 
on  itemized  estimates  (Laws  of  1893,  C.  214). 

In  1894,  the  same  degree  of  fiscal  control  over  the  state  charitable 
institutions  was  vested  in  the  comptroller  (Laws  of  1894,  C.  654). 

In  1874  the  people  adopted  the  report  of  the  Constitutional  Com- 
mission of  1872  abolishing  state  aid  to  orphan  asylums  and  similar  insti- 
tutions, but  left  untouched  the  field  of  local  appropriations  to  such  insti- 
tutions. 

In  1875  the  State  of  New  York  entered  upon  the  policy  of  reclaiming 
destitute  children  between  the  ages  of  three  and  sixteen  from  the  alms- 
houses  and  directing  future  commitments  to  orphan  asylums  or  to  the 
care  of  private  families,  requiring  that,  as  far  as  practicable,  a  child  shall 
be  committed  to  an  institution  controlled  by  officers  of  the  same  religious 
faith  as  that  of  the  parents  of  the  child  (L.  1875,  C.  173).  It  was 
operation  under  this  act  that  in  large  measure  brought  about  the  con- 
ditions that  demanded  and  received  the  attention  of  the  constitutional 
convention  in  1894,  for  at  that  time  in  the  City  of  New  York  among 
children  under  the  age  of  sixteen  one  child  in  every  thirty-five  was  an 
inmate  of  such  institution. 

Efforts  were  made  in  the  convention  of  1894  to  secure  a  prohibition 
of  all  public  aid  to  sectarian  institutions,  but  permitting  such  aid  to  other 
private  institutions.  These  efforts  failed.  The  ultimate  issue  came  to  be 
whether  all  public  aid  to  all  private  charities  should  at  once  be  abolished 


11 

or  whether  there  should  be  a  new  system  of  rules  and  regulations  and 
enforcement  thereof  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  The  latter  view 
prevailed.  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  his  treatise  on  the  convention,  calls  it  an 
"unsatisfactory  compromise"  (Vol.  2,  p.  554). 

The  president  of  the  convention,  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Choate,  said  in  sub- 
stance that  if  it  were  an  original  question,  he  would  be  in  favor  of  pro- 
hibiting the  application  of  any  public  money  to  any  private  charity;  but 
the  state,  by  the  act  of  1875,  had  deliberately  entered  "upon  a  scheme  of 
using  the  agency  of  private  charities  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of 
these  wards  of  the  state,  the  helpless  children  who  had  nobody  else  to 
care  for  them" ;  and  nobody  questioned  athe  absolute  duty  of  the  state  to 
provide  for  them  in  the  way  of  care,  maintenance,  and  of  the  same  edu- 
cation that  we  give  to  other  children  of  the  state". 

Mr.  Root  said:  "We  must  either  set  up  institutions  ourselves,  which 
will  take  care  of  the  orphans  and  dependents,  or  we  must  prevent  our 
Constitution  from  precluding  the  civil  divisions  of  the  state  from  taking 
care  of  these  unfortunates  where  they  are  supporting,  maintaining  and 
educating  them.  *  *  *  They  must  be  educated.  They  are  to  be 
American  citizens.  The  highest  duty  we  owe  them  is  that  of  educating 
them — above  even  food,  clothing  and  shelter." 

By  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  Art.  VIII  §  9  of  the  constitution  of 
1894,  the  prohibition  of  1874  against  state  aid  to  private  institutions, 
except  for  the  education  of  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  juvenile 
delinquents,  was  continued. 

In  §  4  of  Art.  IX  of  the  constitution,  there  is  found  a  prohibition 
against  aid  by  the  state,  or  any  subdivision  thereof,  of  any  school  or 
institution  of  learning  wholly  or  in  part  under  the  control  or  direction 
of  any  religious  denomination,  or  in  which  any  denominational  tenet  or 
doctrine  is  taught.  The  constitution  also  contains  as  §  14  of  Art.  VIII, 
what  Mr.  Lincoln  has  since  called  the  "unsatisfactory  compromise".  It 
is  as  follows : 

"§  14.  Nothing  in  this  constitution  contained  shall  prevent  the 
legislature  from  making  such  provision  for  the  education  and 
support  of  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  juvenile  delinquents, 
as  to  it  may  seem  proper;  or  prevent  any  county,  city,  town  or 
village  from  providing  for  the  care,  support,  maintenance  and 
secular  education  of  inmates  of  orphan  asylums,  homes  for 
dependent  children  or  correctional  institutions,  whether  under 


12 

public  or  private  control.  Payments  by  counties,  cities,  towns  and 
villages  to  charitable,  eleemosynary,  correctional  and  reformatory 
institutions,  wholly  or  partly  under  private  control,  for  care,  sup- 
port and  maintenance,  may  be  authorized,  but  shall  not  be 
required  by  the  legislature.  No  such  payments  shall  be  made  for 
any  inmate  of  such  institutions  who  is  not  received  and  retained 
therein  pursuant  to  rules  established  by  the  state  board  of  charities. 
Such  rules  shall  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  legislature  by  gen- 
eral laws." 

The  Constitu-         Upon  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  constitutional  convention  of 
1894,  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  State  Commission  in  Lunacy 


for  the  first  time  were  recognized  as  constitutional  bodies,  and  the  State 
Board  of  Charities  then  ceased  its  supervision  over  the  hospitals  for  the 
insane,  although  for  some  years  this  supervision  had  not  been  exten- 
sively exercised. 

Other  pertinent  sections  from  Art.  VIII  in  the  Constitution  of  1894 
are: 

"§  11.  The  legislature  shall  provide  for  a  state  board  of 
charities,  which  shall  visit  and  inspect  all  institutions  whether 
state,  county,  municipal,  incorporated  or  not  incorporated,  which 
are  of  a  charitable,  eleemosynary,  correctional  or  reformatory 
character,  excepting  only  such  institutions  as  are  hereby  made 
subject  to  the  visitation  and  inspection  of  either  of  the  commis- 
sions hereinafter  mentioned,  but  including  all  reformatories  except 
those  in  which  adult  males  convicted  of  felony  shall  be  confined; 
a  state  commission  in  lunacy,  which  shall  visit  and  inspect  all 
institutions,  either  public  or  private,  used  for  the  care  and  treat- 
ment of  the  insane  (not  including  institutions  for  epileptics  or 
idiots)  ;  a  state  commission  of  prisons  which  shall  visit  and  inspect 
all  institutions  used  for  the  detention  of  sane  adults  charged  with 
or  convicted  of  crime,  or  detained  as  witnesses  or  debtors." 

"§  15.  Commissioners  of  the  state  board  of  charities  and  com- 
missioners of  the  state  commission  in  lunacy,  now  holding  office, 
shall  be  continued  in  office  for  the  term  for  which  they  were 
appointed,  respectively,  unless  the  legislature  shall  otherwise  pro- 
vide. The  legislature  may  confer  upon  the  commissions  and  upon 
the  board  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections  any  additional  powers 
that  are  not  inconsistent  with  other  provisions  of  the  constitution." 


13 

The  State  Board  of  Charities,  with  the  aid  of  the  State  Charities 
Aid  Association  and  other  organizations,  prepared  and  presented  to  the 
legislature,  in  1895,  a  draft  of  a  statute  to  make  operative  the  provi- 
sions of  the  constitution  in  so  far  as  they  related  to  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  State  Board  of  .Charities.  These  labors  took  form  in  "An 
act  to  revise  and  consolidate  the  laws  relating  to  the  State  Board  of 
Charities"  (Laws  of  1895,  C.  771).  By  provision  of  the  statute,  the 
board  of  eleven  members  was  continued  and  in  obedience  to  the  con- 
stitutional requirement  (Art.  X,  §  9),  the  legislature  fixed  a  nominal 
compensation  of  $10  per  diem  for  attendance  at  meetings,  limiting  the 
total  compensation  each  year  to  $500.  The  powers  and  duties  of  the 
board  under  the  earlier  acts  were  continued  and  enlarged,  and  specific 
reference  thereto  will  hereinafter  be  made  as  may  be  required. 

The  statutes  relating  to  the  State  Board  were  revised  by  the  Com-  The  state 
missioners  on  Statutory  Revision  in  1895  and  embodied  in  C.  546,  Laws  and  the  Poor 
of  1896,  known  as  the  "State  Charities  Law,"  which  as  amended,  be- 
came chapter  55  of  the  Consolidated  Laws  (L.  1909,  C.  57).     In  1896 
the  legislature  enacted  the  "Poor  Law"    (Laws  of  1896,  C.  225),  to 
which  reference  should  be  made  to  ascertain  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  with  respect  to  the  maintenance  and  re- 
moval of  the  State  alien  and  non-resident  poor,  and  the  support  of  the 
Indian  poor. 

Until  1900,  the  State  Board  of  Charities  considered  that,  under  the  Power  to 

.    .  11         •  Visit  Private 

constitution  and  laws  it  was  empowered  to  visit  and  inspect  all  private  institutions 

....  .  .  ri  .  t       ,  t  not  in  Receipt 

charitable  institutions,  irrespective  of  the  question  whether  they  were  of  Public  Aid. 
or  were  not  in  receipt  of  public  aid.  At  the  close  of  the  year  1899, 
about  1,200  charitable  institutions  had  been  visited  and  inspected  by 
the  State  Board  and  had  reported  to  it.  Of  these  1080  were  private 
institutions,  of  which  663  were  entirely  supported  from  private  sources, 
including  35  homes  for  children. 

In  1900,  the  Court  of  Appeals,  in  a  proceeding  instituted  by  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  New 
York  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Children  to  submit  to 
visitation  and  inspection  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  held  in  sub- 
stance  that  the  State  Board  had  not  the  power  to  visit  and  inspect  the 
society,  for  the  reason  that  it  did  not  fall  within  the  class  of  institu- 
tions subject  to  the  visitation  and  inspection  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  as  described  in  the  constitution.  The  court  further  laid  down 


14 

the  rule  that  a  charitable  institution,  within  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
stitution and  the  statutes,  must  be  one  that  in  some  form  or  to  some 
extent  receives  public  moneys  for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  indi- 
gent persons. 

In  1901  the  State  Board  of  Charities  in  its  annual  report,  in  speak- 
ing of  this  decision,  said: 

"For  the  first  time  in  a  quarter  of  a  century,  by  preventing 
the  collection  of  reports  from  organized  charities,  it  prevents  the 
Legislature  and  the  public  from  having  any  definite  knowledge 
annually  of  the  amount  of  dependency  which  exists  in  the  State. 
For  instance,  the  total  number  of  dependent  children  in  institu- 
tions cannot  now  be  definitely  known  through  any  official  source. 
It  can  hardly  be  believed  that  the  court  intended  this,  but  it  is, 
nevertheless,  one  of  the  results  of  the  decision." 

In  1900,  the  President  of  the  State  Board  wrote : 

"All  of  the  inmates  or  beneficiaries  of  these  several  hundred 
institutions  are  now  without  the  protection  which  State  inspection 
has  afforded  them  in  the  past.  There  is  now  no  regularly  con- 
stituted department  of  the  State  Government  having  authority 
to  visit  and  inspect  any  of  them,  investigate  their  management 
where  necessary,  or,  through  the  order  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
to  correct  abuses  and  enforce  remedies.  Must  not  this  condition 
be  regarded  as  a  public  calamity?" 

An  attempt  was  made  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  the  State 
Charities  Aid  Association  and  others,  in  the  constitutional  convention 
of  1915,  to  procure  an  explicit  grant  of  this  visitorial  power  to  the  State 
Board  of  .Charities,  but  the  proposal  was  not  acted  upon  favorably  by 
the  convention. 

At  the  instance  of  Ansley  Wilcox,  Esq.,  of  Buffalo,  a  bill  was  intro- 
duced in  the  legislature  in  1916  by  Senator  Horton,  to  amend  the  State 
Charities  Law  for  the  purpose  of  providing,  in  effect,  that  the  super- 
visory powers  of  the  State  Board  should  extend  over  all  charitable 
societies  receiving  public  aid  or  making  public  appeals  for  funds  for 
the  support  of  their  work.  This  bill  remained  in  the  committee. 

Since  1900  there  has  been  no  inspection  of  this  class  of  institutions 


15 

by  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  although  it  possesses  the  power  of 
approving  or  disapproving  the  certificates  of  incorporation  thereof.  In 
other  words,  it  may  safeguard  the  creation  of  the  institution,  but  not 
watch  it  thereafter  (S.  C.  L.,  §9). 

In  1899  the  Salary  Classification  Commission  was  created  by  means  Salary  ciassi 
of  an  amendment  to  §  17  of  the  Finance  Law  (Laws  of  1899,  C.  383).  mission. 
This  commission  consisted  of  the  State  Comptroller  and  the  President 
of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  and  to  it  was  given  the  power,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  governor,  to  classify  into  grades  the  officers 
and  employees  of  the  state  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions,  and 
to  fix  the  salaries  and  wages  to  be  paid  to  such  officers  and  employees. 
In  1914  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities  was  made  a  member 
of  the  commission  (Laws  of  1914,  C.  215). 

In  1902,  the  legislature,  on  the  recommendation  of  Governor  Odell,  Fiscal  Super- 
over  the  opposition  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  created  the  office  stSe0. 
of  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities,  and  by  imposing  upon  such 
Fiscal  Supervisor  the  duty  of  revising  detailed  estimates  of  institutional 
expenses  prepared  by  the  institution  superintendents,  conferred  upon 
him  complete  fiscal  control  of  the  state  charitable  institutions  (Laws 
of  1902,  C.  252).  There  was,  however,  no  repeal  of  any  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  State  Charities  Law  touching  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  as  to  financial  supervision  of  the  insti- 
tutions. In  1916  the  governor  recommended  to  the  legislature  the 
abolition  of  this  office,  but  that  action  thereupon  should  be  deferred  until 
this  report  should  have  been  submitted. 

In  the   same  year,   the  legislature  took   from  the   State  Board  of  Building  im- 

s~\*        •   •          1  1  1  •  r         •  e  1      -i  i«  provement 

Chanties  the  power  to  approve  plans  and  specifications  for  new  buildings  Commission, 
and  improvements  for  the  state  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions, 
and  vested  it  in  the  Building  Improvement  Commission,  consisting  of  the 
Governor,  the  President  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  Comp- 
troller (Laws  of  1902,  C.  252).  Thereafter,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was 
substituted  for  the  Comptroller  as  a  member  of  this  commission. 

In  1909,  the  legislature  created  a  Board  of  Classification,  consisting  Board  of 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  the  State  Commission  of  Prisons,  the  Super- 
intendent of  State  Prisons  and  the  Lunacy  Commission.  It  became  the 
duty  of  said  board  to  fix  and  determine  prices  at  which  all  labor  per- 
formed, and  all  articles  manufactured  in  the  state  charitable  institutions 
and  in  the  penal  institutions  and  furnished  to  the  state  or  its  political 


16 

subdivisions  or  to  public  institutions,  should  be  compensated  for  (Laws 
of  1909,  C.  47,  §  184). 
Boardof  In  1912,  the  legislature  created  a  Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble- 

minded,  Criminals  and  Other  Defectives,  consisting  of  one  surgeon,  one 


neurologist  and  one  practitioner  of  medicine,  for  terms  of  five  years,  with 
a  compensation  of  $10  per  diem  and  expenses.  It  became  the  duty  of 
this  board  to  examine  into  the  mental  and  physical  condition  and  the 
record  and  family  history  of  the  feeble-minded,  epileptic,  criminal  and 
other  defective  inmates  in  the  state  hospitals  for  the  insane,  state  prisons, 
reformatories  and  charitable  and  penal  institutions  in  the  state.  In  the 
case  of  certain  persons  described  in  the  act  the  board  was  given  power 
to  appoint  one  of  its  members  to  perform  an  operation  for  the  prevention 
of  procreation  (Public  Health  Law,  §  19;  Laws  of  1912,  C.  445). 
Commission  on  In  1913,  the  legislature  established  the  Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds 
and  Buildings,  which  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  reporting  to  the 
governor  its  action  with  respect  to  sites,  location  of  buildings  and  laying 
out  of  grounds  of  all  state  institutions  reporting  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
and  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  whether  existing  institutions  or  insti- 
tutions to  be  created.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  made  chairman  of  the 
commission  and  the  other  members  were  a  member  of  the  State  Board 
of  Charities,  the  State  Architect,  a  member  of  the  Conservation  Com- 
mission and  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  or  their  designated  repre- 
sentatives, the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  and  the  chair- 
man of  the  Assembly  Ways  and  Means  Committee  (Laws  of  1913,  C. 
625). 

Multiplicity  of  Control  and  Division  of  Responsibility. 

Excessive  visi-  The  framers  of  the  constitution  of  the  state  were  extremely  explicit 
in  marking  out  the  boundaries  of  the  visitorial  powers  over  the  state 
institutions  among  the  three  great  departments,  the  charitable  institutions, 
the  prisons,  and  the  hospitals  for  the  insane.  In  respect  of  the  visitorial 
power,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  legislature  has  not  exceeded 
the  sanction  of  the  constitution  in  making  fresh  grants  of  this  power 
since  the  constitution  was  adopted.  Visitorial  powers  that  had  vested 
prior  to  the  constitution  were  expressly  preserved  by  it  (Art.  VIII,  §  13). 
Irrespective  of  this  question  of  constitutionality,  with  the  mere  suggestion 
of  which  I  am  content,  it  is  important  to  call  attention  to  the  multi- 
fariousness  with  which  the  grant  of  this  power  has  been  attended. 


tation. 


17 

As  Mr.  Herbert  F.  Prescott,  formerly  Deputy  Fiscal  Supervisor, 
pointed  out  to  the  legislature  at  its  extra  session  in  1914  (Ass.  Doc.  2)  : 

"The  institutions  in  the  charities  group  are  visited  and  inspected 
by  ten  state  departments  and  two  private  associations.  In  addition 
to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  State  Board  of  Charities  the  in- 
vestigating bodies  include  the  State  Charities  Aid  Association, 
State  Architect,  Commissioner  of  Efficiency  and  Economy,  State 
Fire  Marshal,  Commissioner  of  Health,  Commission  of  Prisons, 
New  York  Prison  Association,  Superintendent  of  Weights  and 
Measures,  Conservation  Commission  and  the  Department  of  Edu- 
cation. *  *  *  They  are  overrun  daily  with  inspectors  and 
official  visitors  whose  chief  function  appears  to  be  to  criticize  con- 
ditions over  which  the  managers  have  practically  no  control.  This 
fact  is  quite  as  well  known  to  the  inspectors  as  to  the  managers 
and  for  several  years  past  it  has  been  common  for  the  inspectors  of 
one  department  to  criticize  another  department  over  the  shoulders 
of  the  managers  by  pointing  out  that  the  managers  are  not  to 
blame  for  the  conditions  criticized.  The  effect  is  demoralizing." 

(NOTE  :  Two  of  these  departments  have  since  been  abolished,  the 
Slate  Fire  Marshal  and  the  Commissioner  of  Efficiency  and  Economy  ; 
but  there  has  been  added  the  Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble  Minded, 
Criminals  and  Other  Defectives.) 

Based  upon  my  own  experience  as  president  of  the  board  of  managers 
of  the  New  York  State  Training  School  for  Girls  at  Hudson  for  about 
ten  years,  as  well  as  upon  the  evidence  before  me,  I  believe  I  am  safe  in 
saying  that  so  much  of  the  time  of  the  institution  superintendents,  as  fine 
a  body  of  experts  as  probably  can  be  found  in  the  United  States,  is  given 
up  to  the  struggle  to  see  how  to  obey  so  many  adverse  comments  and 
suggestions  from  supervising  departments  that  they  have  not  time  and 
strength  left  to  give  the  best  there  is  in  them  to  the  unfortunates  com- 
mitted to  their  care. 

In  1915,  this  state  lost  to  Pennsylvania  the  services  of  Franklin  H. 
Briggs,  Superintendent  at  the  New  York  State  Training  School  for  Boys. 
These  are  words  from  his  letter  of  resignation : 

"It  has  become  the  settled  policy  of  the  state  to  employ  trained 
men  and  women  at  high  salaries  to  take  charge  of  its  institutions, 
and  then  make  it  impossible  for  them  to  perform  the  functions  for 


18 


Shifting  of 
Powers  from 
State  Board 
and  Local 
Boards  of 
Managers. 


Powers  Should 
be  Concen- 
trated in  a 
Supervisory 
Board. 


which  they  are  employed  by  setting  over  them  more  than  twenty 
departments,  commissioners,  boards  and  officials,  several  of  them 
with  a  horde  of  inspectors,  to  prevent  these  same  Superintendents 
from  doing  that  for  which  they  are  paid." 

Explicit  as  to  visitorial  powers,  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
remained  silent  with  respect  to  any  system  of  administration  for  the  state 
charitable  institutions.  When  the  constitution  was  adopted,  or  shortly 
prior  thereto,  the  management  of  each  of  these  institutions  was  in  an 
unpaid  board  of  managers,  subject  to  the  inspection  and  visitation  of  the 
State  Board  of  Charities,  and,  of  course,  to  the  audit  of  the  comptroller. 
By  piecemeal  legislation  this  power  has  been  whittled  away.  Complete 
fiscal  control  through  the  revision  of  detailed  estimates  of  all  the  expendi- 
tures was,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  first  conferred  upon  the  comp- 
troller and  then  upon  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  The  power  to  pass  on  plans 
and  specifications  was  first  given  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  then 
transferred  to  the  Building  Improvement  Commission.  The  power  to  fix 
salaries  and  establish  positions  was  conferred  upon  the  Salary  Classifica- 
tion Commission.  The  power  to  determine  how  many  employees  there 
should  be,  or  whether  a  greatly  needed  employee  could  be  added,  fell  to  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor,  limited  only  by  the  extent  of  the  appropriation.  The 
power  to  locate  a  new  building,  large  or  small,  was  conferred  upon  the 
Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds  and  Buildings. 

The  situation  has  reached  a  point  where  it  is  surprising  that  persons 
of  adequate  capacity  and  independence  can  be  found  to  serve  upon  these 
local  boards.  Natural  initiative  by  these  managers  has  been  largely 
smothered  by  this  system.  Mr.  Prescott  said :  "There  are  today  more 
state  departments  assisting  in  running  these  institutions  than  there  are 
institutions." 

The  remedy,  however,  is  to  be  found  not  so  much  in  a  return  of  these 
powers  to  the  local  boards  as  in  concentration  thereof  in  a  supervisory 
board,  to  the  end  that  there  may  be  less  friction,  greater  expedition  and  a 
more  definite  and  single  responsibility. 

The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  in  1915,  in  writing  for  the  con- 
stitutional convention  said : 

"In  the  division  of  charitable  institutions  and  reformatories, 
the  duplication  of  inspection  plainly  results  in  unnecessary  waste 
of  effort,  annoyance  to  institutions,  and  lack  of  thorough  accom- 


19 

plishment  of  the  aim  of  the  state.  It  is  one  thing  for  the  state 
to  grant  the  right  of  entry  and  full  powers  of  inspection  to  an 
outside,  privately  managed  organization  like  the  State  Charities 
Aid  Association,  or  the  New  York  Prison  Association,  in  order 
to  insure,  at  the  expense  of  private  citizenship  organizations,  the 
widest  publicity  concerning  the  operations  of  these  institutions 
about  which  baseless  rumors  always  exist  and  in  which  there  is 
constant  danger  of  maladministration.  It  is  quite  another  thing 
to  provide  at  state  expense  for  mandatory  inspection  and  super- 
vision, in  order  to  insure  efficient  and  economic  administration  and 
to  know  that  the  law  is  obeyed  and  is  adequate  to  accomplish 
the  full  purposes  of  state  responsibility.  The  latter  kind  of  in- 
spection implies  costly  and  well  organized  expert  service,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be  divided  among  many  inde- 
pendent or  badly  co-ordinated  departments  or  should  work  at 
cross  purposes  and  operate  to  stifle  and  discourage  initiative  and 
enterprise  on  the  part  of  the  administrators  of  the  law." 

Legislation  is  in  the  main  responsible  for  this  "multiplicity  of  con-  Onejuyerof 
trol  and  division  of  responsibility."  There  are  many  sad  evidences  of  upoiSAn°ther. 
failure,  and  even  unwillingness,  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  depart- 
ments to  co-operate.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of 
1894,  and  down  to  the  close  of  the  legislative  session  of  1915,  there 
was  enacted  such  a  mass  of  legislation  relating  to  the  administration 
and  supervision  of  state  charitable  institutions  that  it  defies  my  powers 
to  tell  just  where  the  responsibilities  for  the  discharge  of  many  impor- 
tant functions  lies.  In  particular,  the  dissection  and  distribution  by  legis- 
lative enactment  of  powers  and  duties  among  the  State  Board  of  Charities, 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  the  Comptroller,  the  State  Architect,  and  some 
of  the  smaller  commissions,  usually  taking  the  form  of  new  legislation 
without  repeal  of  old,  make  it  impossible  often  to  say  who  is  the  re- 
sponsible officer.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  process  of  placing  one  layer 
upon  another  layer,  until  the  patchwork  has  grown  thick.  Institutional 
heads  in  bewilderment  turn  not  to  the  law,  but  render  obedience  unto 
any  and  all  who  make  demand. 

Although  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  been  given  the  power  of  "super- 
vising the  fiscal  affairs  of  the  institutions,"  as  stated  by  the  attorney- 
general,  and  it  is  conceded  that  in  practice  he  is  in  absolute  control  of 


20 

the  fiscal  affairs  of  the  institutions,  nevertheless,  in  the  Finance  Law 
it  is  provided  that  "the  Comptroller  shall  superintend  the  fiscal  affairs 
of  the  State,"  and  the  State  Board  of  Charities  retains  the  power  to 
ascertain  as  to  the  economical  expenditure  of  money  and  the  condition 
of  the  finances  generally  in  the  institutions,  and  it  is  its  duty  to  "aid  in 
securing  economic  administration." 

Although  the  attorney-general  has  held  that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
may  not  supervise  the  institutions  in  respect  to  their  policies,  the  Deputy 
Fiscal  Supervisor  advises  me  that  today  it  is  the  general  conception 
that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  "manages  and  controls  in  everything,  func- 
tional as  well  as  fiscal,  all  the  activities  of  the  several  institutions.  It 
may  be  said  that  this  conception  is  justified  by  statute  to  some  extent." 

To  add  to  the  confusion,  the  attorney-general  has  held  that  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor  has  absolute  control,  and  the  same  attorney-general 
has  held  that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  only  advisory  powers,  in  pass- 
ing upon  the  estimates  of  expenses;  while  the  State  Board  of  Char- 
ities, which  has  in  practice  completely  retired  from  the  field  of  fiscal 
supervision,  nevertheless  by  law  may  call  to  the  attention  of  an  insti- 
tution any  defect  or  abuse  in  its  administration,  and  the  institution  shall 
correct  it,  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  the  board.  This  would  cover 
the  economical  expenditure  of  institutional  appropriations. 

Under  §  48  of  the  State  Charities  Law,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  must 
approve  a  contract  for  supplies  required  at  any  state  institution  not 
purchased  under  joint  contract;  under  §  16  of  the  State  Finance  Law, 
the  Comptroller  must  approve  such  contract  where  it  exceeds  $1,000 
in  amount.  In  one  case  presented  to  me,  an  institution  had  pressing 
need  of  an  automobile.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  approved  the  contract 
on  the  ground  the  car  was  needed;  the  Comptroller  disapproved  it  on 
the  ground  it  was  not.  Institution  treasurers  must  make  monthly  re- 
ports in  detail  of  receipts  and  expenditures,  not  only  to  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor, but  to  the  Comptroller.  The  same  is  true  as  to  affidavits  and 
vouchers.  The  same  is  true  as  to  inventories.  The  annual  reports  of 
the  institutions  must  be  made  both  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  to  the 
State  Board.  Under  §  49  of  the  State  Charities  Law,  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor has  the  power  to  audit  all  bills  for  construction  work  in  cases 
where  the  State  Architect  has  drawn  the  plans.  In  1914  this  power 
was  conferred  upon  the  Comptroller,  but  whether  or  not  that  power  is 
exclusive  in  him  does  not  appear  (Laws  of  1914,  C.  111).  In  precisely 


21 

the  same  words  the  State  Board  and  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  are  charged 
with  the  duty  of  investigating  the  condition  of  grounds,  buildings  and 
other  property.  Both  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  -Comptroller  are 
given  authority  to  prescribe  forms  of  accounts  for  the  institutions. 
Whose  prescriptions  shall  be  followed  it  does  not  appear.  Both  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  State  Board  of  Charities  are  charged  with 
the  duty  of  reporting  annually  to  the  legislature  with  respect  to  appro- 
priations requisite  for  the  state  institutions.  Both  the  Comptroller  and 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  may  authorize  institutional  estimates  of  expenses 
"for  a  period  beyond  that  for  which  such  estimate  is  ordinarily  made." 
Although  in  1913  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  required  by  law  to  pass  on 
every  detail  of  the  estimates,  in  that  year  a  law  was  passed  requiring 
the  institution  to  give  immediate  notice  to  the  Comptroller  of  the  in- 
curring of  any  liability  of  any  nature,  and  also  to  deliver  to  him  a 
duplicate  of  the  invoice  of  all  supplies  and  materials.  In  practice,  this  has 
given  rise  to  the  so-called  "order  system,"  under  which  both  the  Comp- 
troller and  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  obtain  copies  of  every  order. 

Illustrations  of  these  duplications  and  inconsistencies  in  the  statutes 
could  be  multiplied  almost  indefinitely.  The  record  of  my  examination 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  some  of  the  exhibits  reveal  the  situation 
as  it  was  presented  to  me.  Further  elaboration  of  detail  in  this  report 
would  hardly  serve  to  make  the  point  clearer. 

The  State  Charities  Law  should  present  a  comprehensive  basis  for  Revision  of  the 
the  natural  leadership  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  toward  an  orderly 


development  of  the  state  institutional  service.  To  illustrate:  the  cen-  Much  Needed. 
tral  supervising  body  should  be  enabled,  by  the  adoption  of  rules  relat- 
ing to  the  reception  and  retention  of  inmates  in  the  state  institutions, 
to  define  the  scope  of  institutional  work  so  that  the  interests  of  the 
state  at  large  shall  be  best  conserved ;  it  should  determine  the  maximum 
capacity  of  the  several  institutions,  having  that  broader  view  of  the 
needs  of  the  whole  than  any  local  board  of  managers  could  have. 

The  ten  articles  in  the  State  Charities  Law  relating  specifically  to 
the  several  state  institutions  should  be  rewritten,  with  a  view  to  preser- 
vation of  what  is  best  in  each  for  the  enjoyment  of  all  and  for  the  sake 
of  simplicity  and  uniformity.  Section  eleven  should  be  repealed.  It 
exempts  the  New  York  State  Soldiers  and  Sailors'  Home  at  Bath  from 
the  management  and  control  of  the  State  Board.  It  was  passed  to 
please  the  veterans  who  had  not  relished  a  much-needed  special  invest!- 


22 


gation  of  the  local  management.  The  investigation  was  ably  conducted 
by  Justice  Eugene  A.  Philbin,  then  a  member  of  the  State  Board.  The 
enactment  of  the  statute  accomplished  absolutely  nothing.  It  purports  to 
take  away  from  the  State  Board  that  which  it  has  not,  namely,  "manage- 
ment and  control,"  and  to  re-affirm  that  which  could  not  be  in  any  way 
affected  by  the  legislature,  namely,  the  right  to  visit  and  inspect.  It  is 
one  of  those  excrescences  on  the  law  which  should  be  removed. 

The  State  Comptroller  has  recently  expressed  the  view  that  no  one 
can  tell  from  the  law  which  locality  in  many  cases  is  properly  charge- 
able with  the  support  of  children  committed  by  the  courts.  Uncertainty 
as  to  payments  should  be  removed.  The  law  is  utterly  without  uni- 
formity as  to  who  may  apply  to  the  several  state  institutions  for  the 
admission  of  an  inmate  and  upon  what  form  of  papers. 

The  Poor  Law  should  not  consist  mainly  of  negatives  and  checks, 
but  into  it  should  be  written  the  substance  of  sound  relief  principles. 
I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  give  adequate  consideration  to  the 
work  of  the  town  overseers  of  the  poor,  but  I  am  much  impressed  with 
the  recommendation  that  they  should  be  abolished  and  that  both  out- 
door or  home  relief  and  institutional  control  should  be  vested  in  one 
Superintendent  of  the  Poor  in  each  county,  to  be  appointed  from  eligible 
lists.  The  power  of  commitment  should  be  centralized  in  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Poor. 

What  is  needed  is  a  thorough  revision  of  the  statutory  law,  line  for 
line,  and  a  codification  of  the  laws  relating  to  charities,  after  the  legis- 
lative and  the  executive  departments  have  determined  what,  if  any,  new 
methods  of  state  administration  should  be  adopted. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  has  now  a  membership  of  twelve,  one 
from  each  of  the  nine  judicial  districts  of  the  state,  and  three  additional 
from  New  York  City.  During  the  hearings  there  was  one  vacancy  and 
I  examined  the  remaining  eleven  members.  During  the  progress  of  the 
investigation,  one,  Mr.  Mulry,  died,  and  the  two  vacancies  have  been 
filled.  In  so  far  as  this  report  touches  on  the  personnel  of  the  board,  it 
should  be  understood  not  to  relate  to  the  two  new  members. 

There  are  no  specifications  in  the  statute  as  to  qualifications  for 
membership,  either  as  to  sex,  age,  pursuit,  politics,  religion  or  otherwise ; 
but  district  representation  is  imperative. 


23 

I  cannot  say  too  early  in  this  report  that  the  people  of  the  State  of 
New  York  should  be,  and  doubtless  are,  profoundly  grateful  to  the  State 
Board  of  Charities,  especially  in  view  of  the  devoted,  unselfish  and  un- 
compensated  service  of  many  of  its  members  over  long  periods  of  years. 
Some  have  been  men  of  national  distinction  in  social  service.  Political  or 
partisan  considerations  have  never  controlled  its  course.  There  has  been 
conspicuous  improvement  in  the  administration  of  institutions  generally, 
state,  county,  city  and  private,  since  the  creation  of  the  board  in  1867. 
Much  of  this  is  unquestionably  attributable  to  the  aid  and  encourage- 
ment of  the  State  Board. 

William  Rhinelander  Stewart,  the  present  president  of  the  board,  has 
made  this  work  his  chief  pursuit  in  life  since  1882.  He  has  been  president, 
with  one  short  interim  which  was  of  his  own  seeking,  since  1894.  He  has 
expended  from  his  private  funds  in  advancing  the  interests  of  the  board. 
He  has  attended  214  out  of  a  possible  238  meetings  of  the  board  in  thirty- 
four  years.  In  the  last  eight  years,  he  has  visited  141  state  institutions,  3 
county  institutions,  87  municipal  institutions  and  82  private  institutions,  a 
total  of  313 ;  and  in  the  same  period  he  has  attended  a  total  of  500  meet- 
ings concerned  with  state  charitable  interests.  There  are  few  cases  of 
such  persistent  devotion  to  public  duty. 

But  the  question  of  this  day  is :  has  the  state  of  New  York  the  best 
known  system  for  the  care  and  supervision  of  the  unfortunates  within 
its  domain;  is  the  record  of  the  State  Board  with  its  present  limitations, 
such  as,  on  the  whole,  to  justify  the  faith  that  it  can  fully  perform  the 
part  that  should  be  assigned  to  it  under  that  system.  The  problem  is, 
have  we  a  system  which  will  permit  of  the  best  possible  administration 
in  the  hands  of  good  officials,  and  the  least  harmful  administration  in  the 
hands  of  poor  officials.  "Good  personnel  may  make  a  bad  system  work 
for  a  time,  and  bad  personnel  may  ruin  a  good  one ;  but,  in  the  long  run, 
any  system  will  follow  its  inherent  tendencies."  (Robert  W.  Kelso,  Sec- 
retary Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Charity.) 

I  have  never  regarded  the  acceptance  of  my  commission  as  an  engage- 
ment to  enter  into  a  man  hunt  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  finding  that 
might  lead  to  the  removal  from  office  of  this  or  that  man,  or  this  or  that 
board  or  commission.  I  have  from  the  beginning  striven  to  treat  the  prob- 
lem impersonally,  so  far  as  it  might  be,  and  shall  so  treat  it  now.  It  is  an 
investigation  into  a  system.  What  is  the  system  ?  What  has  the  system 
produced  ? 


24 

The  absence  in  the  law  of  specifications  as  to  qualifications  for  mem- 
bership need  not  have  led  to  executive  carelessness  or  indifference  in 
making  appointments  to  the  board,  but  it  probably  has.  At  any  rate, 
it  would  seem  to  me  that  at  the  time  of  appointment  only  a  minor  frac- 
tion of  the  State  Board  had  special  qualifications  for  the  post.  One  of 
the  members  testified  that  "Frequently  there  are  men  on  the  board  of  no 
special  qualification."  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  legislature  has 
prescribed  specific  professional  qualifications  for  two  of  the  three  mem- 
berships in  the  Hospital  Commission,  which  supervises  the  insane  (Laws 
1909,  C.  32),  for  the  Commissioner  of  Health,  and  for  four  of  the  six 
members  of  the  Public  Health  Council  (Laws  1913,  C.  559). 

The  average  age  of  the  eleven  members  of  the  State  Board  at  the 
time  of  my  examinations  was  66-67.  Opinions  will  differ  as  to  whether 
it  is  likely  that  a  board  of  that  average  age  will  serve  with  as  great  a 
degree  of  efficiency  as  a  board  of  younger  men.  It  would  seem  probable 
that  it  is  difficult  to  obtain  the  gratuitous  service  of  capable  men  upon 
such  a  board  as  this  until  they  have  reached  an  independent  competence, 
which  is  usually  late  in  life,  but  I  am  not  at  all  of  the  belief  that  it  cannot 
be  done,  if  the  place  is  one  of  sufficient  power  and  dignity  to  make  it 
potential  for  a  high  quality  of  service  to  the  state. 

Powers  and  The  powers  and  duties  of  the  State  Board  may,  in  general,  be  said  to 

relate  to  visitation,  inspection,  supervision  and  investigation  of  the  insti- 
tutions specified  in  the  constitution;  to  the  safeguarding  of  payments  by 
muncipalities  and  other  political  subdivisions  of  the  state  to  private 
institutions  for  care,  support  and  maintenance,  by  establishing  rules  for 
the  reception  and  retention  of  inmates  therein ;  to  the  administration  of 
the  affairs  of  the  state,  alien  and  Indian  poor;  to  the  collection  of  statis- 
tical data ;  to  promoting  the  interests  of  the  institutions  and  their  inmates  ; 
to  securing  for  the  state  economical  administration  of  the  state  institu- 
tions ;  to  advising  the  executive  and  the  legislature  upon  these  and  kindred 
subjects.  A  more  detailed  reference  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
State  Board  has  already  been  made  in  the  preceding  observations  upon 
the  statutory  law. 

Staff.  The  staff  of  the  board  consists  of  the  Secretary,  paid  $6,000  per 

annum,  who  is  the  only  employee  not  taken  from  the  civil  service  lists, 
and  53  other  employees,  including  a  Superintendent  of  State  and  Alien 
Poor  at  $3,500  per  annum,  and  a  Superintendent  of  Inspection  at  $3,000 
per  annum.  There  are  16  inspectors  of  whom  8,  in  the  Department  of 


25 

Inspection,  visit  private  institutions,  and  8,  in  the  Department  of  State 
and  Alien  Poor,  visit  public  institutions.  In  the  Department  of  State  and 
Alien  Poor,  there  is  a  Bureau  of  Analysis  and  Investigation,  concerned 
chiefly  with  a  study  of  the  problem  of  the  feeble  minded  and  with  psycho- 
logical tests  to  determine  feeble-mindedness. 

The  cost  to  the  state  for  salaries  and  traveling  expenses  of  the  State  Payroll. 
Board  of  Charities  in  1901  was  $51,305.87;  and  in  1915  it  had  reached 
$97,756.40.  There  is  nothing  in  the  reports  of  the  board  that  indicates 
clearly  that  the  appropriation  requested  for  official  salaries  in  the  De- 
partment of  State  and  Alien  Poor  is  other  than  for  the  services  of  em- 
ployees engaged  in  the  work  of  maintaining  and  relieving  the  state,  non- 
resident and  Indian  poor;  yet  the  fact  is  that  much  of  the  money  appro- 
priated was  expended  for  salaries  of  employees  engaged  in  inspecting 
state  institutions  in  which  such  poor  are  not  congregated,  in  visiting 
placed-out  children,  almshouses,  hospitals  and  schools  for  the  deaf,  in 
making  transfers  in  private  institutions,  and  for  the  Bureau  of  Analysis 
and  Investigation,  which  is  engaged  chiefly  in  gathering  statistics  relating 
to  the  feeble-minded  and  making  psychological  tests.  Just  why  the  cost 
of  these  services  is  included  under  the  inappropriate  title  "State  and 
Alien  Poor"  is  not  apparent,  nor  does  it  appear  that  the  legislature,  in 
its  detailed  appropriation  bill,  understood  this.  I  do  not  intimate  that 
there  is  anything  covert  in  this  arrangement.  The  service  actually  em- 
braced was  indispensable  to  the  discharge  of  the  statutory  functions  of  the 
State  Board.  However,  a  reclassification  of  the  staff  of  the  State  Board 
under  more  appropriate  titles  might  serve  to  give  the  appropriating  power 
and  the  public  a  more  accurate  notion  of  the  real  needs  of  the  depart- 
ment and  the  use  by  it  of  the  funds  appropriated. 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1894,  the  State  Board  Meetings, 
held  from  five  to  six  meetings  in  the  year.  Since  then,  the  average 
number  of  meetings  has  been  from  eight  to  nine,  at  which  the  average 
attendance  of  the  twelve  members  has  been  from  eight  to  nine.  One  of 
the  present  members  attended  only  three  board  meetings  in  each  of  four 
years.  There  are  three  members  of  the  board  who  made  it  a  practice 
to  live  out  of  the  state  each  year  during  the  three  busy  winter  months 
when  the  legislature  is  in  session  and  therefore  when  there  is  a  very  great 
opportunity  for  usefulness  at  Albany.  It  should  be  said  that  one  of  these 
three  comes  on  to  New  York  for  board  meetings. 


26 

Familiarity  of  Very  few  of  the  members  possess  what  would  seem  to  be  reasonable 
familiarity  with  the  State  Charities  Law,  even  in  respect  of  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  board  itself,  much  less  as  to  fields  of  duty  of 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities,  the  Comptroller  and  the  State 
Board  and  the  smaller  commissions  respectively.  Some  of  the  members  of 
the  State  Board  have  strange  misconceptions  as  to  the  institutions,  par- 
ticularly the  eighteen  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions  maintained 
by  the  state  and  subject  to  the  visitation  .and  inspection  of  the  board. 

With  a  very  few  exceptions,  the  members  failed  to  remember  the 
particular  committees  of  which  they  are  members,  probably  because 
so  many  of  the  committees  never  meet.  One  member  thought  there 
were  48  state  institutions  in  his  judicial  district  alone  (There  are  only 
18  in  the  entire  state.)  One  did  not  know  that  the  State  Board  cannot 
visit  such  private  institutions  as  are  not  in  receipt  of  public  aid.  (The 
Court  of  Appeals  in  1900  decided  that  the  State  Board  could  not  visit 
such  institutions,  and  it  has  been  a  matter  of  state-wide  discussion  and, 
very  properly,  the  lament  of  the  State  Board  ever  since.)  This  member 
thought  that  case  applied  to  state  institutions  and  had  heard  it  said  that 
the  State  Board  could  not  inspect  the  Craig  Colony  at  Sonyea.  (This 
is  the  well-known  state  institution  for  epileptics,  visited  regularly  by 
the  State  Board  and  furnishes  the  material  for  a  considerable  part  of 
its  annual  report.)  Many  of  the  members  have  no  idea  of  the  cost  of 
the  board  to  the  state;  one  would  not  like  to  say  it  was  as  much  as 
$25,000  a  year;  another,  who  was  on  the  committee  on  finance,  put  it 
at  considerably  less  than  $30,000.  (For  salaries  and  traveling  expenses 
alone  it  was,  in  fact,  over  $97,000  in  1915.)  One  could  not  say  whether 
the  board  had  anything  to  do  with  appropriations  for  state  institutions. 
(This  is  one  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the  board  under  the  State 
Charities  Law.)  One  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  board  for  four  years 
was  not  sure  of  the  names  of  some  of  the  other  members  of  the  board. 
Two  did  not  know  that  the  board  had  anything  to  do  with  the  Indian  poor. 
(This  subject  is  dealt  with  at  length  in  every  annual  report.)  One  never 
had  visited  any  one  of  the  18  state  institutions,  although  a  member  for 
four  years.  One  thought  the  duties  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  should  be 
discharged  by  the  Attorney  General.  (The  duties  of  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor are  set  forth  in  the  State  Charities  Law  and  it  is  a  matter  of 
common  knowledge  that  they  relate  to  fiscal  affairs  only  and  that  the 
chief  law  officer  would  probably  be  the  last  in  the  state  who  should 


27 

be  called  upon  for  this.)  Many  of  the  members  did  not  know  that 
the  board  possessed  any  power  with  respect  to  transfers  of  inmates 
from  one  state  institution  to  another  state  institution.  (A  grant  of  this 
power  was  recommended  to  the  legislature  by  Governor  Higgins,  and 
when  it  was  given  it  was  regarded  as  of  large  importance.)  Most  of 
the  members  thought  that  the  State  Board  still  possessed  the  power  to 
approve  or  disapprove  plans  and  specifications  for  state  institution  build- 
ings. (This  power  was  taken  away  from  the  board  in  1902,  and  it 
has  been  the  desire  of  the  President  of  the  State  Board  to  see  it  returned 
to  that  board,  although  he  is  a  member  of  the  Building  Improvement 
Commission,  upon  which  this  power  was  conferred.)  One  member  serv- 
ing upon  the  committee  of  the  State  Board  on  the  Soldiers'  and  Sailors' 
Home  at  Bath,  did  not  know  that  the  legislature  had  provided  that  the 
home  should  be  exempted  from  the  "management"  of  the  State  Board. 
One  member  had  never  heard  of  the  institution  known  as  the  Tramp 
Farm  at  Greenhaven.  (This  is  one  of  the  18  state  institutions  subject 
to  the  visitation  of  the  State  Board,  was  authorized  in  1911,  and,  although 
not  yet  opened,  is  dealt  with  at  length  by  the  State  Board  in  its  annual 
reports.)  Some  members  of  the  committee  on  legislation  and  the  commit- 
tee on  legal  questions  had  made  no  study  of,  and  indeed  had  no  knowl- 
edge of,  the  overlapping  and  conflicting  of  legislative  requirements  upon 
the  several  boards  and  commissions.  One  member  of  the  committee 
on  idiots  and  feeble-minded  had  never  heard  of  the  suggestion  that 
has  been  talked  of  from  one  end  of  the  state  to  the  other,  among  per- 
sons especially  interested,  that  there  should  be  created  a  new  state  de- 
partment for  the  supervision  of  the  feeble-minded,  and  he  had  not  con- 
sidered the  fundamental  question  whether  the  best  care  of  the  feeble- 
minded calls  for  the  treatment  in  the  same  institutions  of  all  ages  and 
both  sexes.  One  member  did  not  know  that  the  board  had  any  duty 
with  respect  to  the  sanitary  condition  of  buildings  or  measures  for  the 
protection  of  the  health  of  inmates.  (This  is  one  of  the  express  statu- 
tory duties  of  the  State  Board  and  has  been  for  many  years.)  One 
did  not  know  of  the  existence  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commission. 
(This  Commission  classifies  all  positions  and  fixes  the  minimum  and 
maximum  of  salaries  in  all  the  state  charitable  institutions.)  Another 
did  not  know  of  the  existence  of  the  Building  Improvement  Commis- 
sion. (This  is  the  commission  of  which  the  President  of  the  State 
Board  is  a  member  and  passes  authoritatively  upon  all  building  plans 


28. 

for  state  institutions.)  One  member  of  the  committee  on  idiots  and 
feeble-minded,  having  special  charge  of  the  five  institutions  for  the  feeble- 
minded and  visiting  the  same  regularly,  thought  that  at  the  Syracuse 
institution  there  were  only  girls.  (In  fact  there  were  322  boys  and  329 
girls  at  that  institution  during  the  last  year.)  He  thought  Letchworth 
Village  had  only  males.  (There  were  69  female  inmates  out  of  a  total 
of  303.)  He  thought  at  first  that  at  the  Rome  institution  there  were 
only  boys,  and  later  said  boys  and  girls.  (It  has  537  females,  besides 
males  of  all  ages.)  One  member  thought  that  a  possible  result  of  the 
mental  tests  at  the  new  Laboratory  of  Social  Hygiene  at  Bedford  would 
be  to  send  the  girls  either  to  the  Hudson  Reformatory  or  to  Bedford. 
(All  the  girls  submitted  to  the  tests  have  been  committed  to  Bedford 
and  are  beyond  the  age  limit  of  girls  receivable  at  Hudson.)  One  mem- 
ber of  long  standing  thought  the  State  Board  is  now  authorized  by  law  to 
visit  the  insane  asylums.  (This  right  was  abolished  by  the  constitutional 
convention  of  1894.)  He  also  thought  that  the  great  new  institution  for 
the  feeble-minded  at  Letchworth  Village  was  entirely  the  result  of  State 
Board  agitation,  and  thought  the  "State  Board  of  Charities  had  made 
the  present  Lunacy  Commission  and  all  that  is  good  in  the  state  asylums." 
One  did  not  know  that  Governor  Whitman,  in  his  annual  message  to 
the  legislature  for  1916,  had  made  any  recommendation  relating  to  the 
site  of  the  Yorktown  School  for  Boys,  and  two  of  the  members  did 
not  know  that  he  had  touched  upon  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor, 
except  in  some  comparatively  unimportant  detail.  (The  Governor  had 
recommended  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the 
abandonment  of  the  Yorktown  School  site.)  One  could  not  tell  whether 
there  are  200  or  1,000  institutions  visited  by  the  State  Board.  (The 
fact  is  there  are  775.)  One  thought  that  the  report  of  a  recent  special 
investigation  by  the  State  Board  of  one  of  the  state  institutions  in  his 
own  immediate  neighborhood  contained  no  serious  criticisms  and  that 
the  investigation  was  called  for  by  the  legislature.  (It  was  made  at 
the  request  of  the  president  of  the  local  board  and  the  criticisms  dealt 
vigorously  with  such  material  matters  as  overcrowding  in  the  institu- 
tion and  the  segregation  of  white  and  colored  inmates.)  One  thought 
there  is  a  state  institution  for  defective  delinquents.  (There  is  no  such 
institution  and  never  has  been,  and  the  State  Board  has  recently,  in 
its  annual  report  urged  the  necessity  of  it.)  One  did  not  know  that  the 
legislature  had  enacted  any  law  recently  relating  to  the  commitment  and 


29 

detention  of  the  feeble-minded.  (This  has  attracted  wide-spread  at- 
tention among  students  of  this  subject  and  has  given  the  courts  con- 
trol over  the  feeble-minded  similar  to  that  over  the  insane,  Laws  1914, 
C.  361). 

It  is  my  duty  to  call  attention  to  certain  views  held  by  some  of  the  Certain  view*, 
members  of  the  board,  comment  upon  which  would  be  superfluous.  One 
member  of  the  board,  speaking  of  children  in  an  infant  asylum, 
said:  "I  honestly  believe  that  it  is  really  better  for  those  unfortunate 
children  to  die  than  to  live" ;  and  he  doubted,  therefore,  whether  he  did  a 
good  thing  in  helping  to  reduce  the  death  rate  in  a  certain  asylum  from 
96  per  cent,  to  25  per  cent.  This  view  may  have  been  once  widely  enter- 
tained, but  modern  care  in  the  treatment  of  the  most  miserable  infants, 
particularly  in  good  foster  homes,  has  produced  such  results  that  a 
statement  of  this  kind  from  such  source  is  shocking. 

One  member,  when  asked  if  the  State  Board's  inspectors  should  call 
the  attention  of  institutional  authorities  to  the  presence  of  "a  scurrying 
menagerie"  of  bed  bugs,  testified  that: 

"Why,  as  regards  to  bed-bugs  and  lice  and  so  on,  they  are 
generally  scavengers  that  are  looking  for  filth  to  live  on,  and  they 
are  not  harmful  in  themselves,  in  fact  they  are  sometimes  useful 
in  cleaning  up  a  dirty  child ;  they  are  harmful  only  in  one  respect, 
that  they  may  convey  contagious  diseases."  He  also  said  that  both 
baths  and  bed-bugs  "are  useful  in  cleaning  up  a  dirty  child." 

If  these  statements  were  made  seriously,  they  speak  for  themselves; 
if,  as  seems  probable,  they  were  intended  as  a  bit  of  humor,  one  can 
only  feel  that  the  occasion  did  not  warrant  it.  He  later  testified  that  it 
is  desirable  to  get  rid  of  bed  bugs,  but  where  there  are  visitors  from 
tenements  he  did  not  believe  it  could  be  done. 

Another  member  testified  that,  although  in  thirteen  of  the  sixteen 
opened  state  institutions  there  are  female  inmates,  he  wanted  no  women  on 
the  State  Board,  because  it  would  "weaken  our  appropriating  power,"  (I 
shall  endeavor  to  point  out  that  the  State  Board  has  at  present,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  no  appropriating  power  whatever)  ;  and  that  he  would 
as  soon  suggest  putting  women  on  the  Board  of  Regents  as  on  the  State 
Board  of  Charities.  Why  a  woman  should  not  be  on  the  Board  of 
Regents,  he  did  not  say. 


30 

Finally,  there  is  the  statement  presented  by  the  State  Board  to  which 
I  shall  subsequently  refer,  in  which  the  board  said,  in  speaking  of  the 
women  at  the  Bedford  Reformatory: 

"Vicious  women  of  hysterical  temperament  cannot  be  reformed. 
*  *  *  The  State  Board  of  Charities  has  always  said  the 
attempt  to  reform  women  is  an  experiment." 

The  Secretary  ^n  March,  1915,  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board,  Mr.  Hebberd,  called 
of  the  Board.  UpOn  Corporation  Counsel  Frank  L-  Polk,  and  made  to  him  certain  state- 
ments. These  statements  related  to  the  pending  charges,  preferred  by 
Commissioner  Kingsbury  of  the  Department  of  Public  Charities,  against 
Mrs.  Dunphy,  superintendent  of  the  City's  Schools  on  Randall's  Island. 
Mr.  Polk  and  Mayor  Mitchel,  to  whom  the  incident  was  reported,  under- 
stood that  the  Secretary  had  threatened  that  the  State  Board  would 
investigate  the  City  Department  if  the  charges  against  Mrs.  Dunphy 
were  pressed.  Mr.  Hebberd  and  the  late  Thomas  M.  Mulry,  who  was 
also  present,  disclaimed  that  Mr.  Hebberd  had  intended  to  make  a  threat. 
Subsequently  to  the  receipt  of  this  testimony  and  before  counsel  sub- 
mitted the  case  to  me,  Mr.  Hebberd  resigned  his  office.  His  resignation 
was  accepted  and  counsel  for  the  State  Board  assigned  the  circumstances 
which  I  have  related  as  the  reason  therefor  without  assenting  to  the  view 
taken  by  the  representatives  of  the  city.  In  view  of  this  resignation,  and 
its  acceptance  by  the  board,  and  my  purpose,  as  already  declared,  to  deal, 
as  far  as  practicable,  impersonally,  I  cannot  see  that  it  would  be  useful  to 
report  further  upon  this  subject,  except  to  say  that  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  State  Board  expressly  authorized  this  interview.  But  in  view 
of  the  well  known  authority  of  the  Secretary  and  his  duties  under  the 
by-laws  of  the  board,  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  board  became  respon- 
sible for  the  interview. 

For  the  same  reason,  I  shall  not  discuss  in  detail  the  evidence  before 
me  which  discloses  that  the  Secretary  lapsed,  from  time  to  time,  into 
offensive  characterizations  of  fellow  workers  in  the  field  of  charity.  I  can- 
not refrain  from  the  conclusion  that  in  this  way  he  greatly  impaired  the 
expert  efficiency  which  he  possessed  in  high  degree,  and  correspondingly 
curtailed  his  usefulness  to  the  state.  The  Secretary,  under  the  by-laws, 
is  the  medium  of  communication  between  the  board  and  all  to  whom  it 
sends  a  message.  Cooperation  obviously  is  the  duty  of  the  State  Board. 
Indeed,  it  is  the  essence  of  the  spirit  that  created  it.  How  far  all  the 


'31 

members,  or  any  member,  knew  of  the  growing  isolation  of  the  board, 
arising  in  part  out  of  unwillingness  or  inability  to  cooperate  with  it  or 
seek  help  from  it,  does  not  appear.  But  this  they  should  have  known  and 
would  have  known,  had  they  taken  hold  with  a  firmer  grasp.  Doubtless 
the  remedy  which  they  have  now  applied  would  have  been  earlier  applied 
if  they  had  been  less  dependent  upon  a  paid  subordinate. 

There  is  an  extraordinary  failure  on  the  part  of  nearly  every  member  Power  over  the 
of  the  State  Board  to  appreciate  the  extent  of  the  board's  own  power 
over  the  local  boards  of  managers.  They  all  knew  that,  under  certain 
exceptional  conditions  of  abuse  and  neglect  of  inmates,  they  could  issue 
an  order,  after  approval  by  the  Supreme  Court,  directing  modification 
of  the  treatment.  Such  order  is  not  limited  to  such  conditions. 
The  testimony  shows  this  power  never  has  been  exercised.  There 
has  never  been  an  application  to  the  court.  But  none  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  State  Board  seemed  to  appreciate,  or  even  to  know 
of  the  provision  of  §  15  of  the  State  Charities  Law.  Mr.  Hebberd,  the 
Secretary,  knew  of  it  and  said :  "There  is  no  greater  force  in  the  whole 
state."  The  provision  is  very  simple,  and  in  substance  is  that  the  State 
Board  shall  call  the  attention  of  the  managers  of  any  institution  subject 
to  its  supervision  to  any  abuses,  defects  or  evils  which  may  be  found 
therein,  and  such  managers  SHAU,  take  proper  action  thereon,  with  a 
view  to  correcting  the  same,  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  such  Board. 
The  President  of  the  State  Board  said :  "I  know  of  no  such  law" ;  that  if 
there  were  such  law  it  would  be  unconstitutional,  and  that  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  managers  who  would  serve ! 

Evidence  that  there  was  no  appreciation  of  the  scope  and  purpose 
of  this  section  is  to  be  found  in  the  very  recent  experience  of  the  State 
Board  with  the  local  board  of  managers  at  the  New  York  State  Re- 
formatory for  Women  at  Bedford.  Under  the  power  of  the  State  Board 
to  conduct  special  investigations,  in  which  witnesses  may  be  called  and 
sworn,  and  at  the  request  of  the  president  of  the  local  board,  a  com- 
mittee of  the  State  Board  proceeded  to  Bedford  and,  after  an  exhaustive 
inquiry,  made  a  report  which  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  State  Board 
on  March  10,  1915.  The  board  found  that  there  were  defects  in  the 
management  and  that  a  "contributing  cause  was  the  housing  together 
of  the  white  arid  the  colored  inmates,"  and  that  when  certain  new  cot- 
tages shall  be  completed  "it  will  be  quite  possible  to  arrange  for  sep- 
arate housing,"  and  "earnestly  recommends  that  this  be  done."  It  ap- 


32 


Effect  of  Cre- 
ating the  De- 
partment of 
the  Fiscal 
Supervisor. 


pears  that  these  new  cottages  were  completed  September  1,  1915,  and 
that  the  local  board  of  managers  is  still  considering  the  matter.  A  mem- 
ber of  the  State  Board  testified  that  the  local  board  had  voted  not  to 
obey  the  State  Board,  and  he  wondered  whether  the  State  Board  had 
power  to  enforce  its  recommendation.  Irrespective  of  the  merits  of  this 
question  of  segregation,  such  failure  on  the  part  of  the  State  Board  to 
demand  prompt  compliance  with  its  advice  can  only  serve  to  breed  dis- 
respect for  the  State  Board.  The  imposition  by  statute  of  a  penalty  is 
not  required  to  bring  results  from  local  boards  of  managers  generally, 
and  particularly  from  a  board  of  the  exceptional  quality  of  that  at  Bed- 
ford. 

The  evidence  before  me  shows  conclusively  that  the  State  Board 
was  wise  in  successfully  contesting  the  creation  of  the  office  of  the  Super- 
intendent of  State  .Charities,  for  which,  however,  with  some  modification 
of  power,  the  office  of  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities  was  estab- 
lished at  the  same  legislative  session  in  1902.  The  merits  and  demerits 
of  that  part  of  the  system  which  is  under  the  control  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  will  be  treated  in  some  detail  hereinafter.  It  is  sufficient 
to  say  here  that  from  the  hour  of  the  creation  of  that  office  in  1902, 
the  power,  dignity  and  influence  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  began 
to  wane.  The  President  of  the  State  Board  now  concedes  that  when 
the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  first  created  and  began 
to  recommend  policies  for  the  development  of  the  institutions,  he  feared 
for  the  "future  usefulness  of  the  State  Board."  He  said  further  that 
before  the  days  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  he  was  often  consulted  by  the 
legislative  committees  dealing  with  appropriations,  but  that  since  the 
creation  of  that  office,  "the  advice  of  the  State  Board  and  the  presence 
of  the  State  Board  has  practically  never  been  sought.  Even  the  Gov- 
ernor and  his  Budget  Committee  have  not  sought  any  advice  or  informa- 
tion on  the  subject  from  the  State  Board  of  Charities  or  from  the 
president  of  the  Board  for  several  years  past,  and  any  advice  which 
they  may  have  taken,  so  far  as  my  information  goes,  has  come  from 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  or  from  one  of  his  deputies.  *  *  *  The  Fiscal 
Supervisor's  advice  has  been  taken  and  we  have  been  powerless."  The 
vice-president  of  the  State  Board  testified  that  "fiscal  control  carries 
with  it  a  suggestive  power  that  is  well  nigh  invulnerable."  The  Fiscal 
Supervisor  himself  frankly  stated  that  in  the  budget  conferences  before 
the  governor  and  his  representatives  late  in  1915,  it  was  he  and  not  the 


33 

State  Board  that  was  consulted ;  that  the  State  Board  was  neither  pres- 
ent nor  invited  to  be  present  even  by  representative;  that  since  the  cre- 
ation of  the  office  of  Fiscal  Supervisor,  the  State  Board  had  almost  en- 
tirely relinquished  its  interest  in  state  appropriations;  that  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  State  Board  had  not  been  presented  at  these  con- 
ferences, and  that  it  did  not  seem  worth  while  to  bring  in  the  State 
Board's  representative.  The  present  Deputy  Fiscal  Supervisor  declares 
to  me  in  writing,  relative  to  his  department,  that  "it  is  the  general 
conception  that  this  department  manages  and  controls  in  everything, 
functional  as  well  as  fiscal,  all  the  activities  of  the  several  institutions." 
In  a  careful  analytical  report  of  a  special  committee  of  the  board 
of  managers  of  Letchworth  Village  on  the  system  of  control  of  the 
state  institutions,  made  in  1914,  it  is  said: 

"Through  his  hold  upon  the  purse  strings,  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor has  far  greater  power  than  the  state  board  of  charities  or 
any  other  department  having  to  do  with  charitable  institutions. 
No  part  of  any  appropriation  can  be  spent  until  estimates  have 
been  presented  in  detail  to  the  fiscal  supervisor  and  approved  by 
him.  The  system  of  expenditures  upon  allotments  makes  the  in- 
stitution completely  dependent  upon  him.  No  recommendation 
of  the  state  board  of  charities,  salary  classification  commission, 
or  state  architect,  that  involves  the  expenditure  of  money,  can 
be  carried  into  effect  without  the  consent  of  the  fiscal  super- 
visor." 

Representatives  of  the  institutions  have  come  to  know  that  it  is  well  to 
obtain  the  favor  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  if  they  are  to  procure  the  desired 
appropriations,  and  attribute  this  mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  appropria- 
ting powers  naturally  prefer  to  consult  with  a  single  officer  having  fiscal 
control.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  statutory  powers  and  duties 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  State  Board,  in  respect  of  recommenda- 
tions for  state  institutional  appropriations  are  substantially  identical,  and 
so  an  opinion  of  the  attorney-general  discloses. 

Highly  competent  outside  observers  testified  that  the  creation  of  the 
office  of  Fiscal  Supervisor  "tended  to  deplete  and  destroy  the  influence  of 
the  State  Board",  (Dr.  Thomas  W.  Salmon,  of  the  National  Bureau  for 
Mental  Hygiene  and  probably  the  foremost  collector  in  the  country  of 
statistical  information  relating  to  state  boards  of  charities)  ;  and  the  State 


34 


Board  can  make  as  many  recommendations  as  they  wisn,  to  the  legislature 
or  anyone  else,  but  they  have  not  the  power  to  put  them  into  effect  (Mr. 
Homer  Folks,  Secretary,  State  Charities  Aid  Association). 

There  is  in  evidence  a  letter  to  the  President  of  the  State  Board  which 
I  wrote  some  years  ago,  as  president  of  the  local  board  of  managers  of  the 
New  York  State  Training  School  for  Girls  at  Hudson.  In  this  letter  I 
expressed  my  appreciation  to  the  president  for  his  services  to  the  institu- 
tion, but  was  obliged  to  tell  him  that  I  did  not  see  how  we  could  follow 
his  recommendation  as  to  architectural  advice  that  we  needed  at  the  in- 
stitution because  I  doubted  "if  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  would  authorize  it". 

One  result  of  all  this  has  obviously  been  to  cause  the  representatives 
of  state  institutions  to  drift  away,  little  by  little,  from  contact  with  the 
State  Board.  Practically  all  that  is  left  of  this  contact,  which  should  be 
close,  unintermittent  and  that  of  leadership,  is  the  yearly  visit  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  State  Board  and  one  of  the  inspectors  of  the  board,  and  an 
occasional  visit  of  other  members  of  the  board. 

There  was  considerable  condemnation  before  me  of  the  methods  and 
spirit  of  the  board's  inspection  in  the  sixteen  opened  state  institutions, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  characterized  mainly  by  attention  to  petty  detail 
and  that  it  is  destructive  and  without  constructive  suggestion.  On  the 
whole,  I  think  this  is  not  justified.  The  intention  of  the  State  Board  has 
been  to  help  and  to  build  up.  The  general  effectiveness  of  the  exercise 
of  its  visitorial  power  in  recent  years  is  another  matter. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  extent  to  which  the  effectiveness  of  the 
State  Board  has  been  impaired  by  reason  of  the  creation  of  the  office 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  That  was  something  for  which  the  board  was, 
of  course,  not  responsible.  But  there  are  considerations  which  have  made 
for  ineffectiveness  for  which  the  State  Board  is  responsible.  Most  of 
this  is  attributable  to  the  general  attitude  of  the  board.  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  touches  things  too  lightly.  As  one  witness  put  it :  "It  is  not  the 
habit  of  the  board  to  take  aggressive  action  in  following  out  its  recom- 
mendations." In  these  observations  I  am  referring  to  the  course  of  the 
board  generally  with  respect  to  the  eighteen  state  charitable  institutions. 
With  the  course  of  the  board  in  the  matter  of  inspection  of  private  char- 
itable institutions  in  New  York  City  I  shall  deal  in  a  later  part  of  this 
report. 

The  President  of  the  board  said :  "I  am  not  willing  to  subject  myself 
or  the  State  Board,  with  constitutional  authority,  to  rebuff  from  high 


35 

quarters."  Another  member  said :  "We  make  no  personal  appeals  to  the 
legislature  or  governor.  The  policy  of  the  board  is  to  answer  questions 
when  asked,  make  recommendations  formally  and  in  writing,  and  let  it 
go  at  that.  *  *  *  Recommending  appropriations  is  a  privilege,  not 
a  duty.  Often  we  do  not  even  recommend."  A  former  member  of  the 
board  said:  "We  merely  passed  upon  what  was  submitted  to  us." 
Another  member  admitted  that  there  are  absolutely  no  results  from  the 
present  negative  policy  of  the  board  in  such  matters,  that  failure  to  im- 
portune the  legislature  and  governor  in  setting  forth  the  needs  of  the 
institutions  was  probably  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  board  to  advance 
the  great  projects  which  it  favored;  and  yet  he  insisted  that  the  course 
of  the  board  was  right.  Another  member  said:  "My  fundamental 
proposition  is  to  keep  things  out  of  the  newspapers." 

There  are  many  illustrations  of  this  policy  of  aloofness,  this  failure  The  Board  and 
to  drive  hard  enough.  Take  the  case  of  Letchworth  Village — a  splendid  Viiia&e.°r 
new  project  in  Rockland  County  for  the  care  and  training  of  the  feeble- 
minded of  all  types  and  ages  and  both  sexes,  possessing  a  plot  of  2,000 
acres  on  a  beautiful  site  overlooking  the  Hudson.  It  was  established  in 
1907.  There  are  perhaps  only  about  5,000  of  the  feeble-minded,  exclud- 
ing epileptics,  under  institutional  care  in  this  state,  and  there  are  22,000 
such  persons,  conservatively  estimated,  whose  liberty  in  the  state  is  a  men- 
ace to  society.  The  plans  call  for  a  population  of  2,500  to  3,000.  And  yet, 
after  eight  years,  the  total  capacity  of  the  completed  buildings  is  330. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  State  Board  urged  the  establishment  of  this  in- 
stitution, that  its  president  was  one  of  the  commissioners  that  selected  the 
site,  and  that  he  has  always  been  deeply  interested  in  the  institution,  and 
that  the  board  in  its  annual  reports  and  through  a  personal  visit  of  its 
president  to  Governor  Glynn  has  urged  adequate  appropriations.  This 
year,  for  example,  the  board  called  for  $306,000  for  the  institution,  in  ad- 
dition to  ordinary  maintenance.  (The  appropriating  act  provides  for  $97,- 
500.)  But  these  annual  reports  are  printed  late  in  the  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, that  for  1915  having  been  transmitted  on  March  27,  1916;  that  for 
1914  transmitted  on  February  15,  1915;  that  for  1913  transmitted  on 
March  16,  1914 ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  communica- 
tions made  in  this  form  and  at  that  date  in  the  session  are  usually  ineffec- 
tual irrespective  of  the  source.  One  year  the  State  Board  asked  in  its 
annual  report  for  the  sum  of  $657,500  for  Letchworth  Village,  and  the 
legislature  gave  $500.  One  of  the  members  of  the  local  board  testified 


36 

before  me  that  the  State  Board  had  done  little  for  the  institution  beyond 
the  request  in  its  annual  report,  and  one  of  the  members  of  the  State 
Board,  in  conceding  the  failure  of  the  State  Board  to  do  more  than  this, 
and  in  endeavoring  to  excuse  that  failure,  said :  "We  are  not  an  adminis- 
trative body.  We  can  only  recommend." 

The  Board  and  Take  the  case  of  the  New  York  State  Training  School  for  Boys  at 
State  Training  Yorktown  Heights,  greatly  needed  and  planned  as  a  reformatory  of  the 
Boys?  modern  cottage  type  to  take  the  place,  as  far  as  might  be,  of  the  Randall's 

Island  reformatory,  belonging  to  the  congregate  type.  It  was  established 
in  1904.  After  appropriations  by  the  state  of  over  $800,000,  a  large  part 
of  which  was  expended,  the  institution  has  never  been  opened  for 
inmates,  and  in  1916  the  governor  and  legislature  decreed  the 
abandonment  of  the  site.  The  pecuniary  loss  cannot  be  far  from 
the  total  expenditure.  It  is  not  within  my  province  to  •  discuss 
whether  the  desire  of  the  City  of  New  York  for  a  pure  water  supply 
necessitated  this  result,  but  it  is  my  duty  to  consider  the  part  the  State 
Board  has  had  in  all  this.  Here  again,  by  appeal  in  the  annual  reports 
and  by  personal  communications  between  the  president  and  former  gov- 
ernors the  State  Board  sought  to  get  adequate  appropriations  and  to  end 
the  snarl  and  delay  over  plans  in  the  office  of  the  State  Architect.  And 
yet  the  president  of  the  local  board  testified  before  me  that  the  State 
Board  did  not  take  enough  interest  in  the  impending  fate  of  the  institution 
to  "make  the  Board  a  factor,"  and  one  member  of  the  board  said  little 
had  been  done  outside  of  the  annual  reports.  On  the  whole,  this  is  not 
just  to  the  State  Board,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  influence  of 
the  State  Board  during  the  recent  crisis  was  negligible.  One  member 
of  the  State  Board  testified  before  me  that  the  board  felt  the  site  ought 
not  to  be  abandoned  and  the  money  of  the  state  wasted,  and  that  the  board 
had  known  for  months  that  there  was  danger  of  complete  failure  unless 
tremendous  pressure  was  brought  to  bear;  and  yet  the  board  sent  no 
word  to  the  governor  in  expression  of  its  view.  When  the  board  knew 
that  the  governor  had  recommended  the  abandonment  of  the  site  by 
reason  of  danger  of  pollution  of  the  water  supply,  it  contented  itself 
with  transmitting  its  customary  annual  report  to  the  legislature  in  March, 
1916,  in  which  it  spoke  of  the  "hue  and  cry"  and  "condition  of  hysteria" 
on  the  subject  of  water  pollution,  and  urged  the  appropriations  necessary 
to  open  the  institution  for  inmates.  The  Governor  wrote  the  President 
of  the  Merchants'  Association  in  the  City  of  New  York  a  letter  in  Novem- 


37 

her,  1915,  in  which  he  said  he  would  "ask  the  heads  of  the  various 
departments  of  the  city  and  state  concerned  to  study  over  the  situation 
and  report  to  me  for  my  guidance  in  advising  the  legislature  as  to  any 
new  legislation."  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  why  the  Governor  did  not 
subsequently  include  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  the  board  charged  by 
law  with  the  supervision  and  encouragement  and  development  of  insti- 
tutions, in  his  invitation  to  help  and  advise.  It  appears,  however,  that 
he  did  not  do  so.  The  inference  is  plain  that  the  State  Board  had  made 
itself  so  little  felt  that  it  was  perhaps  forgotten.  When  the  Governor's 
message  was  sent  in  to  the  legislature  in  January,  1916,  advising  the 
abandonment  of  the  site,  the  State  Board  at  its  subsequent  meetings  did 
not  even  discuss  the  message.  One  member  of  the  State  Board  said 
he  would  not  have  the  State  Board  oppose  the  Governor  in  the  matter 
of  Yorktown  even  if  he  knew  the  Governor  was  wrong.  Although  the 
welfare  of  the  herded  inmates  on  Randall's  Island  was  involved,  it  would 
be  "a  political  fight,"  he  said,  and  "not  within  the  province  of  the  Board". 

Take  the  case  of  newly  authorized  institutions  which  must  be  put  The  Board  and 
upon  their  feet.  One  member  of  the  board  said :  "The  State  Board 
does  not  regard  itself  as  charged  with  any  responsibility  in  regard  to 
new  institutions."  The  President  of  the  board  said:  "There  has  been 
a  great  need  for  some  years  for  the  new  Reformatory  for  Misdemeanants. 
It  was  authorized  in  1912,  but  it  is  not  now  even  located."  The  State 
Board  says  in  its  last  annual  report : 

"For  many  years  the  necessity  of  a  state  institution  for  male  mis- 
demeanants between  sixteen  and  twenty-one  years  of  age  has 
been  admitted  by  all  who  have  given  serious  consideration  to  the 
various  measures  proposed  for  the  prevention  of  delinquency  and 
crime.  *  *  *  It  is  intended  to  differ  in  character  essentially 
from  a  prison,  and  to  be  a  reformatory  in  the  best  sense  of  the 
term — an  institution  in  which  education  and  corrective  discipline 
will  prepare  young  men  of  disorderly  tendencies  for  useful  citi- 
zenship." 

The  extent  of  the  impression  all  this  has  made  on  the  State  Board 
is  revealed  in  the  testimony  of  its  president,  who,  when  asked  under 
whose  jurisdiction  this  institution  was,  said :  "I  think  it  is  under  ours.  It 
is  on  my  list  of  charitable  institutions  here.  There  is  nobody  there  yet,  I 
think.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  in  particular  that  the  board  has  done 


38 

about  getting  a  place  for  that  except  to  recommend  the  institution  as  neces- 
sary. I  do  not  think  any  appropriation  has  been  made  for  it  even, 
but  the  board  has  done  what  it  could."  When  asked  what  that  con- 
sisted of,  he  replied :  "I  shall  have  to  find  out.  I  have  not  got  it  in 
my  mind.  It  is  not  an  open  institution.  I  do  not  recall  any  specific 
thing  that  has  been  done  toward  obtaining  the  progress  of  that  insti- 
tution further  than  our  annual  recommendation  to  the  legislature  con- 
tained in  the  printed  report." 
The  Board  and  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  testified  that  he  did  not  know  of  anyone  in  a 

Appropriations  .  r 

for  new  Build-  supervisory  capacity  who  had  more  than  a  perfunctory  interest  in  appro- 
priations for  new  buildings.    He  said  : 

"Maybe  the  State  Board  of  Charities  has  it  by  statute,  but 
they  haven't  exercised  it.  The  State  Board  of  Charities,  I  be- 
lieve, is  on  record  as  asking  for  another  women's  reformatory 
in  the  western  part  of  the  state — and  has  not  gotten  beyond  the 
introductory  stage,  but  during  that  time  there  have  been  other 
bodies  who  have  wanted  buildings  and  have  come  forward  and 
gotten  them.  The  State  Board  of  Charities  hasn't  been  on  the 
job  if  they  feel  they  have  been  neglected  in  any  way.  They 
haven't  asserted  what  they  should  assert  if  they  have  the  right." 

The  State  Board  regards  the  removal  of  the  Syracuse  State  Insti- 
tution for  Feeble  Minded  Children  from  its  narrow  confines  in  the  city 
to  the  open  country  as  "a  crying  need,"  and  yet  the  board  has  con- 
tented itself  with  its  printed  recommendation  in  its  annual  report  call- 
ing for  the  removal  and  the  appropriations  needed. 

The  Board  and         Recently  a  member  of  the  State  Board  found  a  county  almshouse 
botu£s!  in  such  condition  that  he  calls  it  "a  disgrace  and  a  firetrap,"  and  says 

that  it  had  been  such  for  years.  But  he  can  only  say  that  the  Super- 
intendent of  State  and  Alien  Poor  visited  the  place  and  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  State  Board  wrote  a  letter  to  the  county  supervisor,  but 
he  was  not  sure  of  this.  If  there  were  ever  a  case  for  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  the  board  to  call  for  obedience  to  its  recommendations 
under  a  court  order,  this  would  seem  to  be  the  case.  But  the  board 
has  never  exercised  that  power. 

Conditions  at  the  Westchester  County  Almshouse  afford  a  startling 
illustration  of  State  Board  complacency  in  the  face  of  danger.  In  1908 
the  State  Board's  inspector  reported  that  thirty-four  men,  sleeping  on 


39 

the  third  floor  of  the  laundry  building  were  in  serious  danger  of  loss 
of  life  from  fire.  There  was  a  wooden  staircase  at  one  end,  only  2^ 
feet  wide  at  one  point.  There  were  no  fire  escapes.  These  same  con- 
ditions were  reported  in  1912,  and  still  prevailed,  except  ;as  to  the  num- 
ber of  occupants  of  the  room,  when  Mr.  V.  Everit  Macy  became  County 
Superintendent  of  Poor  on  January  1,  1914.  In  the  general  hospital 
at  the  same  place  there  was  a  serious  fire  hazard  to  180  inmates  that 
was  not  mentioned  in  any  report.  This  almshouse,  for  some  years  prior 
to  January  1,  1914,  was  rated  by  the  State  Board  in  the  first  class  as 
to  administration;  yet  on  January  1,  1914,  all  supplies  were  purchased 
without  competitive  bidding,  no  physical  examination  of  inmates  was 
made  upon  admission,  and  little  effort  was  made  to  secure  useful  service 
from  able-bodied  inmates. 

In  1907  the  State  .Charities  Aid  Association  discovered  distressing 
conditions  in  the  Oneida  County  Almshouse.  The  sick  were  confined 
in  dark,  unventilated  rooms  and  the  hospital  care  and  equipment  were 
unworthy  the  name.  The  place  was  over  run  by  tramps  who  frequented 
neighboring  saloons.  The  conditions  were  called  to  the  attention  of 
a  member  of  the  State  Board,  who  expressed  concern  that  the  board's 
inspectors  had  not  reported  it.  Three  of  the  inspectors  were  then  de- 
tailed for  a  special  visit  to  this  institution  and  their  report  fully  con- 
firmed what  had  already  been  found.  Improvements  were  then  de- 
manded by  the  two  bodies  and  finally  obtained. 

In  the  Rensselaer  County  almshouse  in  1908,  representatives  of  the 
State  Charities  Aid  Association  came  upon  a  dark  attic  full  of  beds 
used  by  tramps  and  paupers,  many  diseased,  a  place  so  dark  that  read- 
ing in  it  on  a  bright  day  was  almost  impossible  except  close  to  the 
window.  After  much  publicity  and  pressure,  conditions  there  were  im- 
proved. 

There  is  elaborate  machinery  for  estimating  desired  appropriations  The  Board  and 
for  salaries  of  the  employees  at  the  state  institutions  and  for  com- 
missions  to  establish  grades  and  define  and  classify  existing  positions 
and  authorize  new  positions,  and  for  the  approval  of  detailed  estimates 
for  the  money  required  to  pay  these  salaries.  But  nowhere  at  Albany 
is  there  anyone  who  considers  himself  charged  with  the  duty  of  cut- 
ting out  needless  or  obsolete  positions  in  the  charitable  institutional  ser- 
vice, or  to  insist  upon  reduction  of  salaries  down  to  the  minimum  fixed 
by  the  Salary  Classification  Commission.  A  member  of  the  State  Board 


40 

said  that  this  was  the  Fiscal  Supervisor's  business ;  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor said  it  was  no  one's  business. 

The  Board  and  The  circumstances  attendant  upon  the  establishment  at  the  Bedford 
for  Social  Reformatory  of  the  Laboratory  for  Social  Hygiene,  through  the  munifi- 
Bedford.  cence  of  John  D.  Rockefeller,  Jr.,  are  an  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  state  institution  heads  have  learned  to  rely  upon  themselves.  Mr. 
Rockefeller  received  a  pamphlet  entitled  "A  Rational  Treatment  of 
Women  Convicted  in  the  .Courts  of  New  York  City,"  prepared  by  Dr. 
Katherine  B.  Davis,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Committee  on  Criminal 
Courts  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society.  As  a  result  of  a  series 
of  discussions  among  Dr.  Davis,  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  others,  a  plan 
was  developed  involving  the  purchase  of  a  large  tract  of  land  adjoin- 
ing the  state  property  at  Bedford,  the  erection  of  a  reception  hall,  labora- 
tory building  and  a  psycopathic  hospital.  The  purposes  were:  (1)  To 
study  methodology,  that  is,  to  test  tests  for  the  feeble-minded  which 
might  hereafter  be  used  in  clearing  houses  throughout  the  state.  (2) 
To  determine  the  special  needs  of  each  person  committed  to  the  Bed- 
ford Reformatory  at  the  outset  of  her  institutional  career.  (3)  To  ac- 
quire a  large  body  of  data  bearing  upon  the  causes  of  delinquency  and 
prostitution  among  women.  The  study  of  cases  was  to  include  not  only 
persons  committed  to  the  Bedford  Reformatory,  but  by  arrangement 
with  the  courts,  certain  other  significant  groups.  The  State  Board  has 
called  this  "the  most  important  step  in  advance  yet  taken  in  the  precise 
adaptation  of  remedial  measures  to  the  radical  reform  of  the  individual 
inmates  of  the  institution."  The  point  of  all  the  foregoing  in  this 
connection  is  that  the  plans  for  the  Laboratory  of  Social  Hygiene  were 
fully  developed  without  consultation  with,  or  the  knowledge  of,  the 
State  Board  or  any  member  thereof,  even  of  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee on  idiots  and  feeble  minded.  When  the  Secretary  of  the  State 
Board  learned  of  it  officially,  he  wondered  if  it  was  "an  advisable  plan." 
Dr.  Davis  testified  that  it  did  not  occur  to  her  to  confer  with  the  State 
Board.  It  should  be  added  that  upon  learning  of  the  enterprise  from 
the  president  of  the  local  board,  the  State  Board,  particularly  its  presi- 
dent, did  all  it  could  to  facilitate  it. 

The  Board  and        The  view  of  the  State  Board  expressed  before  me  with  respect  to 
atory  at  Bed-     the  Bedford  Reformatory  is  puzzling.    The  president  submitted  a  memo- 
randum in  which  is  summarized  the  history  of  the  institution.     In  it 
the  statements  are  made  that  "vicious  women  of  hysterical  temperament 


41 

cannot  be  reformed.  *  *  *  The  State  Board  of  Charities  has  always 
said  that  the  attempt  to  reform  women  is  an  experiment.  *  *  *  It 
is  a  question  whether  the  results  to  be  gained  are  worth  the  titanic 
effort  involved.  Reformation  must  be  undertaken  in  younger  persons 
than  those  admitted  to  Bedford  or  it  can  hardly  be  attained." 

These  statements  are  in  sharp  contrast  with  other  recent  statements 
by  the  State  Board  relating  to  the  Bedford  Reformatory.  In  the  report 
made  in  March,  1915,  of  its  special  investigation  of  the  reformatory, 
the  board,  after  speaking  of  the  "women  and  girls  for  whom  the  train- 
ing and  discipline  of  this  institution  were  most  desirable,"  said:  "Much 
good  work  has  been  done  and  is  being  done  at  this  state  reformatory, 
for  which  the  president  of  the  institution,  Mr.  James  Wood,  and  other 
members  of  the  board  of  managers  are  entitled  to  credit,"  and  the 
board  then  pointed  out  the  new  features,  which  gave  promise  "of  ex- 
cellent results."  The  President  of  the  State  Board,  at  an  earlier  hear- 
ing testified  before  me  that  "the  Bedford  Reformatory  is  now  open 
and  doing  useful  and  humane  work."  The  State  Board  asked  the  legis- 
lature for  $242,500  for  this  institution  in  1915,  and  $174,500  this  year. 
If  the  State  Board  really  feels  about  this  institution  as  it  expressed  itself 
in  the  above-mentioned  memorandum,  why  should  it  not  frankly  urge  the 
legislature  to  close  the  institution  or  convert  it  into  another  institution  for 
the  feeble-minded,  so  greatly  needed  or,  more  logically,  see  that  it  becomes 
merely  a  custodial  institution,  in  fact  a  prison,  and  strip  it  of  its  educational 
and  reformatory  training,  so  expensive  for  the  state  to  maintain.  But  it 
cannot  be  that  the  State  Board  really  means  what  it  says  in  this  recent 
pessimistic  outgiving  as  to  the  Bedford  Reformatory.  At  the  Western 
House  of  Refuge  for  Women  at  Albion,  an  institution  for  female 
offenders  of  precisely  the  same  age  and  class,  the  State  Board  in  it? 
last  report  speaks  of  the  "individual  development"  of  the  women.  Of 
the  State  Industrial  Farm  Colony,  intended  for  male  tramps,  the  Board 
is  hopeful  and  said  in  its  last  report:  "Under  a  strong  discipline  con- 
ducive to  habits  of  industry,  the  vagrants  may  be  reformed  and  become 
useful  citizens."  Of  the  State  Reformatory  for  Misdemeanants,  the 
State  Board,  in  speaking  of  the  law  breakers  there  to  be  committed, 
said  in  its  last  report:  "If  given  suitable  training  and  new  opportunities, 
they  are  likely  to  become  useful,  self-respecting  citizens." 

The  local  board  of  managers  of  the  Bedford  Reformatory  has  reported 
on  a  study  of  the  after  life  of  the  first  1,000  commitments.  Although  it 


42 


The  Board  and 
^investigate01 


appeared  that  out  of  this  1,000  the  number  of  those  who,  prior  to  com- 
mitment, had  led  sexually  regular  lives  was  almost  negligible,  the  man- 
agers had  been  able  to  parole  or  send  out  into  homes  on  trial  668  out  of 
the  1,000,  of  whom  393  had,  from  time  to  time,  been  discharged  for 
"having  done  well".  Of  these  393,  the  authorities,  at  the  date  of  the 
report  had  ascertained  that  127  were  "known  to  be  doing  well",  58  of 
whom  had  married,  others  becoming  dressmakers,  office  clerks,  sales- 
women, nurse,  piano  accompanist  and  attendant  at  the  institution. 

In  the  last  report  of  the  State  Board  is  the  statement  that  the  board 
finds  itself  in  substantial  agreement  with  the  general  conclusions  and 
recommendations  of  the  State  Commission  to  Investigate  Provision  for 
the  Mentally  Deficient.  Several  members  of  the  State  Board  either  had 
never  heard  of  the  commission,  or  said  that  the  board  had  not  acted  upon 
its  report,  or  that  they  had  "just  glanced  at  it".  This  was  a  commission 
of  which  the  secretary  of  the  board  was  the  chairman,  and  from  which 
Dr.  Charles  L.  Dana  and  Dr.  Stephen  P.  Duggan  resigned,  after  dis- 
agreement with  the  chairman.  This  commission  was  appointed  in  1914 
and  reported  in  1915.  It  spent  $10,000  and  had  besides,  with  the  consent 
of  the  State  Board,  the  use  of  the  time  of  certain  of  the  investigators  in 
the  State  Board's  Bureau  of  Analysis  and  Investigation.  The  commis- 
sion caused  to  be  introduced  two  bills,  one  for  the  establishment  of  clear- 
ing houses,  which  was  passed  and  then  vetoed  by  the  governor  in  1916, 
the  other  for  a  commission  to  select  a  site  for  a  new  and  much  needed 
institution  for  defective  delinquent  females.  This  bill  failed,  the  chair- 
man of  the  commission  assigning  lack  of  money  as  the  reason.  It  would 
not  appear,  however,  that  a  commission  on  site  would  need  much  money 
in  the  first  instance.  Moreover,  the  state  was  already  in  possession  of 
a  Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds  and  Buildings,  whose  sole  duty  was  to 
perform  just  that  function.  The  chairman  of  the  commission  ad- 
mitted that  the  report  of  the  commission  has  not  led  to  any  im- 
proved methods  in  the  care  of  the  feeble-minded,  but  said  that 
the  time  has  been  too  short.  The  report  contains  no  constructive  sug- 
gestions as  to  a  system  of  administration  and  control  of  the  feeble- 
minded, and  not  a  word  as  to  the  proposal  so  widely  discussed  before  the 
recent  constitutional  convention  and  elsewhere,  that  there  should  be  a 
new  department  exclusively  for  the  supervision  of  the  feeble-minded. 
It  is  the  general  view  that  the  commission  has  failed  to  meet  the  expecta- 
tions that  prompted  its  creation.  Specific  condemnation  of  its  findings 


43 

was  made  by  Mr.  Homer  Folks,  Secretary  of  the  State  Charities  Aid  Asso- 
ciation, who  pointed  out  that  the  main  purpose  of  the  commission  was 
to  promote  'adequate  provision  for  the  feeble-minded  requiring  custodial 
care,  and  that  its  recommendation  that  the  capacity  of  existing  institu- 
tions be  increased  to  2,500  each,  and  that  a  new  institution  be  established 
convenient  to  Buffalo  and  the  southwestern  part  of  the  state,  would  result 
in  creating  room  for  approximately  10,000  inmates  in  that  part  of  the 
state  contiguous  to  Rome  and  westward,  and  for  only  about  6,500  in  the 
easterly  and  southeasterly  sections  of  the  state,  whence  far  over  half  the 
inmates  would  come. 

The  State  Board  has  declared  itself  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  complete  The  Board 

•      i  •        1          t?16  Institu- 

sex  segregation  among  the  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded,  that  is,  that  tionsforthe 

Feeble-minded 

there  should  be  only  inmates  of  one  sex  in  each  institution.  This  is  counter 
to  the  prevailing  opinion  among  experts  on  this  subject  as  far  as  I  can 
ascertain  it.  Indeed,  the  State  Board  itself  is  inconsistent,  for  it  has 
declared  in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  a  new  institution  for  the  feeble- 
minded on  the  lines  of  Letchworth  Village,  where  both  sexes  are  received. 
Further,  one  member  of  the  board  said:  "The  leading  idea  and  purpose 
of  the  State  Board  is  to  empty  the  feeble-minded  institutions,  as  far  as 
possible,  and  place  them  (the  inmates)  out  in  homes  and  in  the  families 
of  the  state."  I  find,  however,  that  the  prevailing  view  among  those 
competent  to  speak  is  that,  however  desirable  a  home  may  be  for  the 
dependent,  it  is  conceded  that  the  defective  is  best  cared  for  in  an  institu- 
tion. 

In  1905,  it  became  widely  appreciated  that  it  was  desirable,  from  time  The  Board  and 

, .  f   .  1  i     r      1  *          •  1    the  Transfer 

to  time,  to  readjust  the  number  ot  inmates  in  the  several  feeble-minded  i<aw. 
and  reformatory  institutions,  in  the  interest  of  more  rational  classification. 
There  was  also  a  problem,  particularly  in  the  reformatories,  the  need  for 
a  solution  of  which  was  growing  more  and  more  acute.  This  problem 
arose  out  of  the  demoralization  that  was  ensuing  in  the  discipline  of  the 
reformatories  by  reason  of  the  numerous  court  commitments  of  defective 
delinquents  to  state  reformatories.  To  meet  this,  Governor  Higgins,  in 
1905,  recommended  that  the  State  Board  should  be  given  the  power  of 
transfer  from  one  state  institution  to  another,  and  the  legislature  acted 
favorably  thereupon  (Laws  of  1905,  C.  452).  Although  the  need  now  is 
greater  than  was  the  need  then,  the  transfer  law  is  a  dead  letter.  A 
member  of  the  State  Board  testified  that  the  board  never  discussed  the 
new  law,  and  so  its  employees  must  have  taken  the  matter  into  their 


44 

own  hands.  The  Superintendent  of  State  and  Alien  Poor  wrote  in  1914 : 
"The  State  Board  of  Charities  does  not  attempt  to  transfer  inmates  of  the 
state  institutions  under  authority  of  Section  18,  as  there  is  always  uncer- 
tainty relative  to  the  success  of  the  undertaking."  Although  this  transfer 
law  applies  to  all  the  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions  without 
exception,  the  secretary  of  the  board  wrote  in  1914  that  there  was  no 
lawful  way  to  transfer  an  inmate  of  the  state  institution  at  Rome  to  the 
state  institution  known  as  the  Craig  Colony,  but  added  that  an  appeal 
directly  to  the  superintendent  of  the  Colony  might  expedite  the  transfer. 
Finally,  the  institutions  themselves  took  the  matter  in  hand,  and  such 
institutions  as  the  reformatories  at  Hudson  and  at  Industry  transferred 
to  the  Rome  Asylum,  and  the  arrangement  was  made  through  the  several 
superintendents  of  the  poor. 

The  president  and  secretary  of  the  State  Board  attribute  the  failure 
of  the  transfer  law  to  the  overcrowded  condition  of  the  institutions.  It 
is  true  the  institutions,  for  the  feeble-minded  particularly,  are  usually 
full ;  but  there  is  a  worse  thing  than  the  overcrowding  of  institutions  for 
the  mere  custodial  care  of  the  feeble-minded,  bad  as  that  is.  Over- 
crowding of  this  class  of  defectives,  who  constitute  a  custodial  problem 
largely,  is  not  attended  with  the  same  objections  as  overcrowding  of  the 
insane  or  the  delinquent  would  be,  interfering  in  the  one  case  with  the 
curative,  and  in  the  other  with  the  reformatory  or  educational  nature  of 
the  care.  The  overcrowding  in  the  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded 
might  be  met,  in  part  at  least,  by  providing  temporary  buildings  in  antici- 
pation of  fresh  appropriations  which  would  be  sure  to  follow  upon  such 
convincing  proof  of  need.  Each  of  these  institutions,  except  that  at 
Syracuse,  has  large  tracts  of  land  upon  which  there  are  no  buildings. 
This  "worse  thing"  to  which  I  have  referred,  is  to  force  the  managers  of 
a  state  reformatory  for  women  or  a  state  training  school  for  girls  to 
send  feeble-minded  women  of  the  child-bearing  age  back  into  the  counties 
from  which  they  came,  probably  to  be  turned  adrift  upon  the  streets 
for  want  of  another  place.  I  have  known  this  to  happen  as  a  result  of 
failure  of  the  State  Board  to  operate  under  the  transfer  law.  If  the 
State  Board  handled  the  situation  without  regard  to  the  pleasure  of  any 
institution  and  with  sole  concern  for  the  safety  of  the  inmates  and  of 
society  generally,  that  transfer  law  would  be  enforced,  and,  in  some 
measure  at  least,  these  abuses  would  be  ended.  In  any  revision  of  the 
State  Charities  Law,  which  I  have  said  was  essential,  this  section  relating 


45 

to  transfers  should  be  amended  by  dispensing  with  the  need  of  obtaining 
the  consent  of  the  governor  as  a  condition  of  transfer. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  State  Board,  through  its  department  The  Board  and 
of  State  and  Alien  Poor,  has  saved  the  state,  in  the  removal  and  repatria- 
tion  of  such  poor,  vastly  more  than  the  department  has  cost  the  state,  and 
I  do  not  find  that  there  has  been  criticism  of  the  way  in  which  the  work 
has  been  done,  except  in  the  City  of  New  York.  In  1913,  Hon.  George 
McAneny,  president  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  and  Hon.  George 
Cromwell,  president  of  the  Borough  of  Richmond,  a  committee  of  the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  in  the  City  of  New  York,  made 
an  inquiry  into  certain  of  the  city  departments,  including  the  Department 
of  Public  Charities.  In  their  report  they  point  out  that  the  State  Board, 
in  its  annual  report  for  1902,  had  expressly  recognized  its  share  in  the 
discharge  of  the  duty  of  the  state  to  relieve  communities  of  the  expense 
of  maintaining  dependent  poor  who  do  not  establish  a  legal  settlement  in 
such  communities,  and  that  the  State  Board  is  charged  with  the  duty  of 
removing  non-residents  of  the  state  from  the  public  institutions  of  the  city. 
The  committee  then  found  that  from  May  19,  1913,  to  June  18,  1913, 
there  were  322  non-residents  of  New  York  State  in  Bellevue  Hospital, 
and  that  of  these  the  State  Board  had  removed  only  7.  During  the  month 
of  May,  1911,  Bellevue  Hospital  referred  388  cases  of  aliens  and  non- 
residents to  the  State  Board,  and  of  these  only  21  were  removed,  and 
179  had  not  been  examined.  The  conclusions  of  the  committee  were  in 
part  as  follows : 

"Many  thousands  of  dependent  aliens  who  are  a  proper  charge 
upon  the  steamship  companies  that  have  brought  them  into  this 
country,  or  upon  the  Federal  Government,  not  only  are  a  heavy 
burden  upon  the  City  of  New  York  for  maintenance  in  public  insti- 
tutions, but  they  also  occupy  beds  to  the  exclusion  of  many  citizens 
of  New  York  City  who  are  in  need  of  custodial  or  medical  care. 
******** 

"The  State  Board  of  Charities  has  not  fully  exercised  the  func- 
tion of  removing  aliens  delegated  to  it  by  law.  It  has,  in  known 
instances,  failed  to  examine  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  aliens 
referred  to  it  for  investigation  for  deportation,  and  has,  in  other 
instances,  removed  only  a  small  proportion  of  cases  that  seemingly 
should  have  been  removed. 

******** 


46 

"The  power  of  removal  of  non-residents  is  given  to  two  State 
Boards  in  New  York;  namely,  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and 
the  State  Hospital  Commission.  The  State  Board  of  Charities 
has  removed  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  non-residents  from 
Bellevue  Hospital  which  the  records  appear  to  show  might  properly 
have  been  removed.  It  has  removed  comparatively  few  of  the  cases 
referred  to  it  for  removal  by  the  Department  of  Public  Charities." 

In  1915,  an  alien  under  16  was  permitted  by  the  Superintendent  of 
State  and  Alien  Poor  to  remain  in  the  Westchester  County  Almshouse  in 
violation  of  the  provision  of  the  Poor  Law  that  children  under  16  shall 
not  be  retained  in  almshouses.  This  state  official  took  the  matter  up  on 
March  31,  1915,  and  was  assisted  promptly  by  the  local  superintendent 
of  poor,  who  had  taken  the  boy  under  a  mistake  as  to  age.  The  Super- 
intendent of  State  and  Alien  Poor  did  nothing  further  until  November  4, 
when  he  wrote :  "If  the  boy  is  still  in  the  almshouse,  I  will  try  to  arrange 
for  him  to  return  to  Porto  Colombo,  from  whence  he  can  easily  make  his 
way  to  his  father's  home."  It  appeared  that  the  local  superintendent  of 
poor,  despairing  of  prompt  attention  at  Albany,  had  secured  the  deporta- 
tion of  the  boy  early  in  May  through  the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Immigration. 

The  locality  which  bears  the  burden  of  these  dependents  has  no  power 
to  make  removals.  The  State  Board,  which  has  the  power  to  make 
removals,  is  under  no  pressure  to  make  such  removals,  for  the  reason 
that  the  locality,  and  not  the  State,  carries  the  burden.  There  should  be 
a  revision  of  the  Poor  Law,  with  certain  new  definitions  and  a  readjust- 
ment of  powers,  so  that  there  shall  be  a  more  prompt  and  equitable  dis- 
tribution of  the  relative  burdens  of  the  state  and  the  localities.  As  I 
have  already  said,  the  Poor  Law,  as  well  as  the  State  Charities  Law 
should  be  rewritten  when  it  has  been  authoritatively  determined  what 
new  system,  if  any,  of  charities  administration  shall  be  written  by  the 
legislature  into  the  law. 

The  Board  and  The  method  of  making  up  the  annual  report  of  the  State  Board,  with 
Report!"3  a  side  light  upon  the  interest  shown  by  the  members  in  this  report  and 
their  knowledge  of  its  contents,  is  deserving  of  comment.  This  report 
is  practically  the  only  public  appeal  or  pronouncement  that  the  State 
Board  makes.  Beginning  at  least  as  early  as  1912,  and  from  that  time  to 
this,  the  State  Board  each  year  has  set  forth  a  summary  of  its  recom- 


47 

mendations  for  legislation.  In  the  report  for  1915,  issued  in  1916,  and 
in  that  for  1914,  issued  in  1915,  and  in  precisely  the  same  words,  appears 
the  following : 

"The  Board  desires  again  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  it  fully 
realizes  the  great  necessity  of  seeking  to  prevent  poverty  and  dis- 
ease through  the  larger  general  measures  in  which  the  State  may 
interest  itself  and  believes  they  should  always  be  regarded  as  of 
primary  importance  in  a  consideration  of  the  subject.  Among 
these  may  be  enumerated:  (a)  Industrial  insurance  as  in  Germany 
and  other  countries;  (b)  Better  housing,  including  the  destruction 
of  unduly  congested  areas  in  cities  and  the  prevention  of  their 
reestablishment  elsewhere  in  such  cities  or  in  the  State;  (c)  More 
practical  education  for  the  young,  particularly  along  vocational  lines 
in  the  public  schools  and  the  institutions  for  children." 

These  were  large  and  important  questions,  well  worthy  of  study  and 
recommendation  by  the  State  Board.  With  a  view  to  ascertaining  upon 
what  study  of  the  facts  these  recommendations  were  based,  and  what 
the  board  had  actually  done  to  write  these  recommendations  into  the  law, 
I  interrogated  nearly  every  member  of  the  board,  including  the  President. 
Not  one  of  them  could  say  that  the  board  had  ever  acted  upon  these 
questions,  and  it  was  evident  that  not  one  of  them  knew  there  was  a 
word  in  the  report  upon  the  subject.  The  President  says  that  he  sees 
all  of  the  report  before  it  is  printed  and  goes  over  it  all,  and  that  upon  a 
question  of  policy,  he  would  know  whether  it  was  a  policy  determined 
upon  by  the  board  before  a  statement  of  it  was  allowed  to  stay  in  the 
report.  He  thought  the  board  had  not  taken  action  on  these  questions, 
and  at  any  rate,  he  could  not  recall  that  the  board  had  made  any  recom- 
mendations for  legislation  upon  this  subject.  The  Secretary  of  the  board 
testified  that  it  was  he  who  wrote  that  part  of  the  annual  report  in  the 
first  instance. 

Fiscal  Supervisor  of  State  Charities. 

Although  the  people  of  the   State,  in  adopting  the  constitution  of  Creation  of  the 
1894,  had  established  a  complete  and  all-inclusive  program  for  the  visita-  ° 
tion  and  inspection  of  the  state  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions 
by  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  and  the  legislature  had  enacted  laws  in 
conformity  therewith  and  the  State  Board  of  Charities  had  been  continu- 


48 

ously  in  operation  thereunder,  the  legislature  in  1902  created  a  new  and 
independent  department  of  the  state  government,  that  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  of  State  Charities,  and  gave  to  it  the  power  to  visit  and 
inspect  the  same  institutions.  The  extent  of  the  exercise  of  this  power 
reached  such  proportions  that,  in  1913,  credit  was  claimed  by  the  head  of 
the  department  for  558  such  inspectional  visits  in  one  year,  some  of 
which  had  lasted  for  several  days. 

Governor  Odell  started  out  in  1901  to  do  away  with  all  the  local  boards 
of  managers  of  the  state  charitable  institutions,  and  to  centralize  the  con- 
trol of  all  these  institutions  in  an  officer  to  be  called  the  "Superintendent 
of  Charities",  retaining  the  State  Board  of  Charities  merely  as  a  visitorial 
body.  The  establishment  in  1902  of  the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor of  State  Charities,  with  the  visitational  power  that  I  have  men- 
tioned, and  the  retention  of  the  local  boards,  was  a  compromise.  How  has 
it  worked? 

Fiscal  Control  It  is  not  particularly  important  what  was  the  conception  of  the  new 
Comptroller,  department  at  the  outset.  But  it  is  important  to  consider  what  the  con- 
ditions were  at  that  time  and  what  were  the  announced  anticipations  for 
the  office.  For  eight  years  there  had  been  a  bureau  in  the  office  of  the 
comptroller  which  had  been  revising  monthly  estimates  of  expenses  in 
the  state  institutions.  It  had  not  worked  well.  There  was  dissatisfaction, 
amounting  almost  to  an  uprising,  among  the  institutions,  and  the  comp- 
troller was  glad  to  relinquish  this  work.  Under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  establishing  the  new  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  this  bureau 
was  transferred  to  the  new  department. 

A  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  testified  that  he  had  heard 
of  the  breakdown  of  the  system  as  then  administered  by  the  comp- 
troller, and  said:  "They  couldn't  dispose  of  the  Comptroller,  so  they 
put  this  incubus  upon  the  state  body  politic  and  called  it  Fiscal  Super- 
visor. He  had  offices  in  the  Capitol  and  a  whole  retinue  of  inspectors 
making  money". 

The  cost  to  the  state  of  the  bureau  in  the  comptroller's  office  never 

exceeded  $17,000  during  any  of  the  four  years  last  preceding  its  termi- 

J  nation.    The  cost  to  the  state  of  the  new  department,  the  duties  of  which 

are  little  greater  than  the  old  bureau,  mounted  from  $26,000  in  1903  to 

$72,000  in  1915. 

The  reasons  of  the  executive  for  the  creation  of  the  office,  may,  from 
his  message,  be  fairly  summarized  as  follows :  ( 1 )  To  equalize  per  capita 


49 

costs  of  maintenance.  (2)  To  put  an  end  to  unbusinesslike,  undesirable 
and  extravagant  requests  by  the  local  boards  of  managers  .for  improve- 
ments. Neither  has  been  realized,  and  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that  neither 
could  be,  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  testified 
that  per  capita  costs  had  neither  been  equalized  nor  reduced.  All  tabula- 
tions show  that  there  is  as  wide  a  discrepancy  in  the  per  capita  costs  at 
the  several  institutions  as  ever.  All  fiscal  supervisors,  from  1902  to  1916, 
have  complained  of  extravagant  requests  by  local  boards  of  annual  appro- 
priations by  the  legislature,  and  very  often  with  reason.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  these  local  boards  of  managers  have  often  found  themselves 
confronted  by  a  situation  in  which  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  could  not  see 
and  would  not  recommend,  and  the  State  Board  could  see  but  could  not 
make  effective  its  recommendation.  Small  wonder  that  these  devoted 
groups  of  managers  throughout  the  State,  who  have  the  first  and  often 
the  only  vision,  ask  for  much  in  the  hope  of  getting  a  little.  Illustrations 
by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  recent  attempts  of  local  boards  to  run  after 
new  things  without  regard  to  available  appropriations  are:  the  desire 
to  establish  laboratories  at  the  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded,  similar 
in  character  to  that  at  Bedford,  already  described  herein ;  and  the  desire 
to  establish  at  the  state  hospital  for  tuberculosis  at  Raybrook  a  research 
laboratory.  It  would  seem  to  me  that  these  laboratories  are  needed,  and 
that  a  supervising  officer  should  be  found  who  will  work  for  such  things 
as  these  until  he  gets  them. 

If  retrenchment  and  economy  are  the  test  of  achievement  by  the 
department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  and  per  capita  cost  is  the  measure 
thereof,  it  should  be  observed  that  in  1902,  the  first  year  of  this  office, 
the  cost  for  food,  clothing,  housing  and  care  was  $168.97  per  annum 
for  each  inmate  in  the  state  charitable  institutions,  and  in  1913  it  was 
$217.91.  The  total  net  per  capita  cost  in  1902-1903  was  $163.54  per 
annum,  and  in  1913-1914  it  was  $226.71,  an  increase  of  $63  for  each 
inmate.  In  every  one  of  the  state  institutions  established  as  early  as 
1897,  except  the  Craig  Colony  and  the  Rome  Asylum,  the  average  weekly 
cost  of  support  was  less  in  the  five  years  preceding  the  establishment 
of  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  than  in  the  five  years  from  1910  to 
1915,  and,  in  nearly  every  case,  less  than  in  the  five  years  from  1902  to 
1907.  The  reason  for  the  decline  in  the  per  capita  cost  of  the  two  excepted 
institutions  is  obviously  due  to  the  very  great  increase  in  the  number  of 
inmates. 


50 

The  Fiscal  Supervisor  early  urged  the  dissolution  of  the  Salary 
Classification  Commission  on  the  ground  that  it  was  little  more  than  a 
vehicle  to  raise  salaries.  Then  for  years  he  urged  that  he  be  made  a 
member  of  the  commission,  so  that  he  could  keep  the  salaries  down. 
He  was  made  a  member  of  the  commission,  and  during  the  first  six 
months  of  his  membership,  the  item  "salaries  and  wages"  in  the  schedule 
of  per  capita  cost  jumped  $1.11. 

One  Fiscal  Supervisor  stated  that  the  yearly  pay  roll  of  the  institu- 
tions was  41  per  cent,  of  the  total  cost  of  maintenance,  and  said  that 
there  was  no  doubt  that  $50,000  in  a  year  could  be  saved  without  impair- 
ing the  service.  The  present  Fiscal  Supervisor  says  that  such  sum 
was  not  and  could  not  be  saved,  and  that  the  ratio  of  salaries  to  total 
maintenance  is  now  higher  than  41  per  cent.  It  was  45  per  cent,  in 
1913-1914,  and  47  per  cent,  in  1914-1915.  A  chief  executive,  assuming 
office  in  this  state  and  determined  to  retrench  in  expenditure  wherever 
possible,  would  naturally  rely  upon  the  department  possessing  complete 
fiscal  control  over  the  state  charitable  institutions  to  refuse  the  money 
asked  for  needless  positions,  if  any,  or  to  see  that  inmate  labor  was 
employed  wherever  practicable.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  admits  that  he 
has  not  done  this,  or  even  attempted  it,  except  that  as  to  the  last  the 
department  has  endeavored  to  cooperate  with  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment. Inmate  labor  may  be  employed  upon  plant  or  buildings  whenever, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  and  State  Architect,  it  is 
advantageous  to  the  state  (Sec.  49,  S.  C.  L.). 

The  department  created  to  cut  out  extravagance  in  the  institutions 
itself  became  extravagant.  The  proof  of  this  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  present  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  reduced  the  number  of  employees 
in  his  department  from  38  to  26,  and  the  total  salary  roll  to  the  extent 
of  $12,000-$  15, 000,  and  claims  for  his  department  the  same  efficiency 
as  hitherto. 

On  July  1,  1915,  the  organization  of  the  department  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  stood  as  follows:  (1)  The  Fiscal  Supervisor,  at  a  salary 
of  $6,000;  a  first  deputy,  at  a  salary  of  $4,500,  and  two  subordinates, 
charged  generally  with  the  duty  of  visitation  and  inspection  and  fiscal 
control.  (2)  The  bureau  of  estimates,  contracts  and  vouchers,  consist- 
ing of  the  second  deputy,  at  a  salary  of  $4,000,  and  eight  subordinates. 
(3)  The  bureau  of  inspection,  consisting  of  a  chief  inspector  at  $2,500, 
a  traveling  dietist  at  $2,500,  five  inspectors,  and  two  other  subordinates, 


51 

nine  in  all.  (4)  The  general  office,  with  a  chief  clerk  at  $2,750,  and 
seven  subordinates.  This  shows  a  total  of  30  persons  and  a  salary  roll 
of  $60,920. 

The  duties  of  the  traveling  dietist  at  $2,500,  were  described  as  "looking 
around  the  kitchens  and  garbage  cans  *  *  *  inspecting  ice  boxes, 
meat  rooms,  and  looking  after  quality  of  food." 

The  same  considerations  which  actuated  me  in  treating  impersonally, 
in  the  main,  the  affairs  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  lead  me  to 
a  like  course  with  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  It  is  the  system 
that  is  at  stake.  In  general,  when  I  mention  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
herein,  it  is  of  the  office  that  I  speak.  It  should  be  said  in  justice  to 
the  present  Supervisor  that  his  second  deputy,  Mr.  Lee,  has  so  admin- 
istered the  bureau  of  estimates  that  there  is  less  friction  between  the 
department  and  the  institutions  than  has  been  known  for  years. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  it  is  the  view  of  the  respective  mem-  Fiscal  Super- 
bers  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  that  the  department  of  the  Fiscal  FunctionaUs 
Supervisor  has  crippled  the  State  Board  and  stripped  it  of  power  and  Activities?03 
influence  in  at  least  one  of  the  most  important  fields  of  usefulness  for 
the  state  institutions;  that  the  present  Deputy  Fiscal  Supervisor  speaks 
of  his  department  as  managing  and  controlling  all  activities,  functional 
as  well  as  fiscal,  in  the  state  institutions ;  that  competent  and  impartial 
observers  from  the  outside  have  concluded  that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
has   today   greater   power   over   these   institutions   than   has   the    State 
Board  of  Charities;  and  that  no  recommendation  of  the   State  Board 
that  invites  the  expenditure  of  money  can  be  carried  into  effect  without 
the  consent  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.     It  may  be  inquired  what  recom- 
mendation does  not  involve  the  expenditure  of  money. 

The  annual  reports  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  from  1902  to  1915  are 
replete  with  illustrations  of  his  exercise  of  the  policy-making  power. 
They  consist  of  suggestions  and  recommendations  as  to  the  discipline, 
training,  entertainment  and  reading  material  for  the  inmates,  the  closing 
of  the  Bedford  Reformatory  as  not  needed,  the  relations  between  the 
superintendents  and  the  Civil  Service  Commission  with  regard  to  appoint- 
ments, the  preparation  of  an  annual  exhibition  at  the  State  Fair  of  the 
product  of  the  institutions,  culminating  with  the  opinion  that,  after  all, 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  should  be  more  concerned  with  the  welfare  of  the 
wards  of  the  state  than  with  the  cost  of  the  institutions,  and  that  it 
is  inadvisable  for  the  state  to  increase  its  expenditures  for  the  care 


52 

of  defectives,  delinquents  and  dependents,  "the  great  majority  of  whom 
will  never  be  returned  to  the  ranks  of  self-sustaining  citizens."  I  refer 
to  a  statement  containing  so  much  folly  as  this  merely  to  reveal  that 
we  are  getting  what  we  might  expect  when  the  fiscal  officer  is  permitted 
to  encroach,  from  year  to  year,  upon  the  power  to  define  policies,  which 
was  intended  to  be  vested  in  the  local  boards  of  managers  under  the 
supervision  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 

There  seems  to  be  a  realization  by  the  present  administrators  of 
the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  that  there  is  something  askew 
in  all  this.  At  the  same  time  that  the  second  deputy,  who  was  put 
forward  as  spokesman,  takes  a  stand  on  the  claim  that  his  department 
"manages  and  controls  all  the  functional  activities  of  the  institutions", 
he  testified  that  "passing  upon  estimates  is  what  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
is  for.  *  *  *  Whatever  there  is  in  the  Fiscal  Supervisor's  depart- 
ment must  sooner  or  later  come  to  the  estimates.  That  is  what  we 
are  there  for."  This  is,  of  course,  the  real  truth,  back  of  which  is 
another  truth,  that  the  review  of  the  estimates  is  the  lever  by  which 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  reached  the  policies  of  the  institutions.  This 
leads  directly  to  a  consideration  of  the  entire  estimate  system.  Is  it 
worth  its  cost? 

The  estimate  system  is  founded  on  the  provisions  of  Section  45  of 
the  State  Charities  Law.  The  Hospital  Commission  performs  the  same 
duty  in  the  case  of  the  hospitals  for  the  insane,  and  the  Superintendent  of 
Prisons  for  the  prisons. 

In  substance,  the  practice  among  the  charitable  institutions  is  that 
the  superintendents  report  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  quarterly,  formerly 
monthly,  upon  a  form  called  an  "estimate."  Upon  this  form  are  stated 
the  amount  required  for  the  salary  of  every  employee,  and  the  supplies 
and  equipment  needed  for  the  ensuing  quarter.  These  estimates  indicate 
the  quantity  and  the  estimated  price,  and  contain  an  elaboration  of  detail 
as  to  the  amount  on  hand,  etc.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  revises  this  esti- 
mate, and  may  grant  or  refuse  any  or  all  the  desired  items  and  increase 
or  decrease  the  amount  or  price  and  alter  the  quality  or  kind.  Nothing 
can  be  purchased  by  one  of  the  state  institutions  unless  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor approves  the  estimate  therefor.  There  may  also  be  one  or  more  re- 
estimates  and  supplemental  estimates.  Correspondence,  sometimes  exten- 
sive, is  carried  on  between  the  superintendent  or  steward  and  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor.  A  period  of  five  weeks  has  not  infrequently  passed  between 


53 

the  date  a  subordinate  in  an  institution  reports  to  the  steward  a  need,  how- 
ever trivial,  and  the  date  of  the  delivery  of  the  goods.  Building  construc- 
tion items  are  presented  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  by  means  of  special  fund 
estimates.  All  estimates  are  sent  to  the  Comptroller  as  well  as  to  the  Fis- 
cal Supervisor.  They  are  revised  by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  his  ap- 
proval of  these  detailed  estimates  becomes  an  allotment  by  him  to  the  insti- 
tution of  the  legislative  appropriation,  pro  tanto.  To  the  extent  that  the 
estimate  is  in  detail,  the  allotment  is  in  precisely  the  same  detail,  no  more, 
no  less.  The  institution  is  gripped  tight.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  determines  the  dress  and  diet  of  the  inmates,  the  books  they 
shall  read  or  study,  the  number  of  teachers  they  shall  have,  the  extent  and 
kind  of  the  hospital  equipment ;  in  short,  in  the  last  analysis,  administers 
the  institution  and  checkmates,  if  he  desires,  the  State  Board  of  Charities 
as  to  any  recommendation  it  may  make  for  institutional  management. 

Quick  action  in  order  to  avail  of  bargain  prices  in  local  markets  is  out 
of  the  question  under  this  system,  because  the  estimate  process  is  in  the 
way.  In  one  institution,  a  parole  agent  became  indispensable  to  the 
proper  conduct  of  the  institution  and  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  notified 
in  August.  After  personal  visits  and  much  correspondence,  the  request 
was  granted,  but  not  until  the  following  March,  when  it  was  found  the 
civil  service  list  had  been  exhausted. 

Another  institution  started  in  October  to  get  glass  to  repair  its  win- 
dows. It  was  February  before  it  was  obtained,  and  in  the  meantime  the 
superintendent  had  had  to  pay  for  it  out  of  his  own  pocket  and  trust 
for  reimbursement. 

One  institution  estimated  in  June  for  a  barrel  of  hominy.  The  Fiscal 
Supervisor  disallowed  it,  for  the  all-sufficient  reason  that  "there  was  no 
purchase  last  year  in  June."  Another  estimated  for  a  bottle  of  ink. 
The  item  was  suspended  because  "the  size  of  the  bottle  was  not  stated." 
One  institution  estimated  for  the  usual  quantity  of  typewriter  paper. 
Item  suspended  without  explanation.  An  estimate  for  a  much  needed 
45-cent  ruler  was  made  three  times,  and  every  time  disallowed  without 
explanation.  An  estimate  for  75  cents'  worth  of  knives  was  reduced  to 
50  cents,  and  the  delay  caused  an  express  charge  upon  these  knives  of 
33  cents.  Another  institution  in  February  estimated  for  two  dozen  tips 
at  75  cents  a  dozen.  When  April  had  arrived,  the  tips  had  been  allowed, 
at  a  total  saving  of  six  cents,  but  it  had  taken  ten  letters  and  20  cents  in 
postage  to  do  it.  These  illustrations  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely. 


54 

In  general,  the  policy  in  the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  in 
revising  estimates  during  most  of  the  period  since  the  creation  of  the 
office  has  been  characterized  by  cheapness,  rather  than  by  economy,  by 
the  denial  of  materials  required  for  proper  teaching,  particularly  in  the 
reformatories,  and  by  petty  annoyances  that  have  distracted  the  super- 
intendents and  kept  them  from  consideration  of  the  really  great  problems 
of  the  institutions.  In  one  year  the  letters  written  by  the  department 
and  one  institution  on  the  subject  of  the  estimates  amounted  to  274, 
an  average  of  nearly  one  for  each  working  day. 

The  department  in  its  annual  reports  has  from  time  to  time,  recog- 
nized that  friction  existed  between  the  institutions  and  the  department 
over  the  working  of  this  estimate  system.  In  1913,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
suggested  that  he  would  diminish  the  burden  upon  the  institutions  by 
sending  an  inspector  instead  of  writing  a  letter!  In  the  following  year, 
he  procured  the  passage  of  a  law  giving  him  the  power  to  compel  an 
estimate  every  month  instead  of  every  quarter  (Laws  1914,  C.  517),  but 
as  yet  he  has  not  reverted  to  the  monthly  estimate.  In  Iowa,  where  the 
estimate  system  obtains,  it  was  first  operated  upon  a  monthly  basis,  then 
quarterly,  then  semi-annually. 

Under  the  law  in  New  York,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  the  discretion 
to  determine  the  extent  of  the  detail  of  the  estimates.  The  Fiscal 
Supervisor  has  seen  he  must  draw  the  line  somewhere  and  has  exercised 
this  discretion  by  permitting  a  large  number  of  articles  to  be  grouped 
and  requested  under  list  numbers.  But  there  are  still  too  many  refine- 
ments, by  far.  The  fact  is,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  carried  to  extremes 
his  plan  of  allotment  in  detail  based  upon  estimate  in  detail.  It  appears 
that  he  has  taken  it  upon  himself  to  establish  about  60,000  appropriating 
allotments  each  year  binding  upon  the  institutions.  This  gives  the  insti- 
tution heads  too  little  latitude  to  purchase,  ties  them  to  the  purchase  of 
too  many  items  that  three  months  before  they  supposed  they  would  need 
but  afterward  learned  they  did  not  need — so  much  as  they  needed  some- 
thing else;  and  often  prevents  them  from  taking  advantage  of  a  cheap 
market  that  suddenly  appears. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  there  is  general  recognition  of  the  necessity 
of  some  form  of  supervision  of  expenditures  other  than  the  formal 
audit  by  the  comptroller.  If  the  estimate  system  is  to  continue  at  all, 
it  must  be  modified.  There  should  be  modification  in  the  amount  of 
detail  required  in  the  estimate,  but  above  all,  the  allotments  by  the 


55 

supervising  officer  to  the  institutions  should  be  in  such  totals  by  groups 
as  to  give  some  latitude  for  independent  action  on  the  part  of  the  in- 
stitution. There  should  be  allotments  for  the  totals  of  specified  broad 
groups  within  which  the  institution  may  depart  in  its  expenditures  from 
what  was  anticipated  in  the  estimate.  This  proposed  new  plan  of  allot- 
ment by  group  totals  on  detailed  estimates  would  be  analogous  to  the  new 
legislative  plan  of  demanding  details  of  past  and  prospective  expendi- 
tures, followed  by  the  segregation  of  the  annual  appropriations  into 
a  few  large  funds. 

One  of  the  critics  of  the  present  administration  of  the  estimate 
system,  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  pointed  out  in  1914: 

"The  present  system  of  control  of  expenditures  does  not  pro- 
vide an  adequate  method  by  which  to  determine  proper  costs  of 
the  various  functions  undertaken  by  the  institution.  A  proper 
cost  analysis  by  function  is  the  only  adequate  check  upon  ex- 
travagance. 

The  necessity  of  submitting  estimates  before  any  purchase 
may  be  made  or  financial  obligation  incurred  does  not  lead  to 
appreciable  savings;  the  inability  to  use  funds  when  emergencies 
or  unforeseen  conditions  arise  must  hamper  the  management  of 
a  new  institution.  That  the  law  has  been  a  constant  irritation 
to  the  management  is  apparent  from  the  correspondence." 

The  Bureau  set  forth  that  expenditures  for  maintenance  are  lumped 
under  accounts  showing  the  objects  of  expenditure  as  prescribed  by  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor;  that  this  classification  affords  no  means  of  localiz- 
ing excessive  expenditures  or  waste;  that  there  should  be  a  set  of  ac- 
counts with  every  functional  division  from  which  periodic  statements 
could  be  taken,  showing  the  cost  of  maintaining  every  function  and  ac- 
tivity of  the  institution.  I  agree  that  this  method  points  to  true  economy 
and  real  efficiency,  and  think  it  should  be  adopted  by  the  supervising 
fiscal  officer,  not  as  a  substitute  for  a  modified  estimate  system,  but  in 
addition  thereto. 

The  most  comprehensive  study  of  the  estimate  system,  and  also  of 
the  joint  contract  or  central  purchasing  system,  that  has  been  brought 
to  my  attention  is  that  of  Mr.  Henry  C.  Wright,  for  the  State  Charities 
Aid  Association.  He  carried  his  study  into  other  states  and  devoted 
a  year  to  it,  in  1909  and  1910.  His  conclusions  in  part,  were:  that  the 


56 

fiscal  supervising  body  should  have  power  to  restrict  expenditures  in 
aggregate,  and  not  to  control  purchases  in  detail ;  that  the  estimate 
system  secures  low  prices  and  equalizes  the  quality,  and  to  some  extent, 
the  quantity  of  supplies  for  the  several  institutions,  but  that  this  saving 
has  been  offset  in  a  measure  by  failure  properly  to  guard  the  receipt  of 
goods. 

I  have  endeavored  in  the  foregoing  to  indicate  what  the  estimate 
system  is,  its  advantages  and  its  defects.  It  remains  to  consider  its 
cost. 

As  administered  for  most  of  the  period  since  it  was  established  in 
1902,  it  has  cost  the  institutions  dearly  in  time  that  might  better  have 
been  devoted  to  larger  pursuits.  It  has  cost  the  state  sums  that  are 
difficult  to  estimate.  In  1914-1915,  it  is  estimated  that  central  fiscal 
supervision  (which  all  revolves  around  the  estimate  system)  in  the 
department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  alone  cost  the  State  $52,620.  This 
sum  was  for  the  full  time  of  26  employees.  The  same  service  in  the 
department  of  the  Hospital  Commission,  cost  $18,133  for  the  full  time 
of  two  employees  and  the  part  time  of  eleven;  and  in  the  department 
of  the  Superintendent  of  Prisons  $20,100  for  the  full  time  of  seven 
employees  and  part  time  of  five.  Put  in  another  way,  the  item  of 
"salaries  and  wages"  in  central  fiscal  supervisory  control  was  $2.21  per 
$1,000  of  expenditure  in  the  hospital  group,  $8.07  in  the  prison  group, 
and  $16.72  in  the  Fiscal  Supervisor's  group.  To  the  sum  of  $52,620 
there  should  be  added  perhaps  as  much  more  for  the  salaries  of  institution 
clerks  engaged  in  reporting  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  Beyond  all  this 
is  the  sum  paid  clerks  in  the  comptroller's  audit  bureau,  which  deals 
with  the  institutions.  Mr.  Wright  ascertained  that  in  1909  and  1910 
in  Iowa,  where  there  is  a  state  board  of  control  revising  estimates  and 
no  state  board  of  charities  and  no  local  boards,  it  cost  the  state  $1.00 
to  supervise  every  $54.80  of  expenditure  by  the  state  institutions;  in 
Indiana,  where  the  only  state  board  is  a  state  board  of  charities,  with 
a  modicum  of  recommendatory  power,  and  where  the  local  board  is 
supreme  and  there  is  no  estimate  system,  it  cost  the  state  $1.00  to  super- 
vise $78.80  of  expenditure;  and  in  New  York  the  sum  of  $1.00  pays 
for  supervision  over  only  $46.30.  He  said : 

"Much  effort  has  been  expended  during  this  investigation  in 
an  endeavor  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  system  has  been 
saving  the  State  more  than  it  has  cost  to  operate  it.  It  is  prob- 


57 

ably  impossible,  from  any  obtainable  source  of  information,  to 
ascertain  the  net  saving,  if  any,  secured  by  the  supervision  and 
revision  of  the  estimates." 

The  present  Deputy  Fiscal  Supervisor  admits  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  tell  whether  the  estimate  system  saves  money,  and  agrees 
with  Mr.  Wright  that  it  may  cost  more  in  energy  and  mean  more  in 
neglect  of  the  more  important  functions  than  could  be  saved  in  reducing 
the  cost  of  supplies.  The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  after  a  careful 
analysis  for  the  board  of  managers  at  Letchworth  Village,  concluded 
that  "The  important  savings  are  not  the  result  of  the  supervision  of 
the  estimates,  but  they  are  made  by  the  (local)  management  in  con- 
trolling possible  liabilities  when  they  are  incurred." 

I  have  made  an  inquiry  into  the  system  of  supervising  the  expendi-  A  Comparison 

,.  ...  -.  .-  ,   .    1  ,   with  System  ir 

tures  of  state  institutions  in  Massachusetts,  in  which  are  located  several  Massachusetts 
of  the  foremost  institutions  in  this  country.  In  this  commonwealth, 
the  legislature  makes  a  lump  sum  appropriation  for  "maintenance"  and 
another  lump  sum  appropriation  for  "special  improvements."  The  state 
auditor,  who  corresponds  to  the  New  York  comptroller,  asks  the  State 
Board  of  Charity  for  advice  as  to  whether  there  should  be  a  differ- 
ent basis  of  expenditure  than  that  indicated  under  twelve  general  heads 
that  he  sets  forth.  The  auditor  allots  the  appropriation  into  as  many 
parts  as  there  are  such  general  heads  and  calls  upon  the  institution 
authorities  to  allot  "in  detail"  on  the  basis  of  their  detailed  estimates 
earlier  submitted  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  appropriation.  Once 
made,  the  institutions  are  then  forbidden  by  the  auditor  to  change  these 
allotments,  which  are  called  the  "appropriation  in  detail"  and  the  insti- 
tutions adhere  very  closely  to  this  throughout  the  year.  Then  there  is 
a  series  of  monthly  and  semi-annual  statements  of  classified  expenses 
by  the  institutions  to  the  auditor,  who  pursues  the  matter  to  final  audit. 
There  is  no  estimate  system  as  we  know  it.  Indeed,  it  should  be  said 
that  the  essential  feature  of  the  Massachusetts  system  is  detailed  item- 
ization  after  expenditure,  instead  of  analysis  and  scrutiny  before 
expenditure. 

Bearing  upon  the  question  of  economy  in  administration,  Mr.  Rob- 
ert W.  Kelso,  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Charity  of  Massachusetts, 
prepared  for  me  a  tabulation  which  shows  that  the  per  capita  cost  in 
Massachusetts  institutions  is,  as  a  rule,  less  than  in  New  York,  com- 


58 

paring  Massachusetts  institutions  of  a  given  kind  with  New  York  insti- 
tutions of  the  same  kind.  For  example,  two  New  York  institu- 
tions for  juvenile  delinquents,  in  1913-1914,  had  a  weekly  per  capita 
cost  of  $7.41  and  $7.29,  respectively,  as  against  $5.24,  $6.83  and  $5.29, 
respectively,  for  the  three  similar  institutions  in  Massachusetts.  More- 
over, the  population  in  the  Massachusetts  institutions  was,  with  one 
exception,  less  than  in  the  New  York  institutions,  a  factor  usually 
counted  upon  to  increase  relatively  per  capita  cost.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  schools  for  feeble-minded  children.  In  the  other  institutions, 
as  far  as  comparisons  could  fairly  be  made,  the  differences  varied  and 
were  slight.  On  a  comparison  of  the  average  number  of  inmates  cared 
for  by  one  employee,  which  is  considered  a  significant  test,  again  the 
advantage,  as  a  rule,  was  with  the  Massachusetts  supervision. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  recommend  at  this,  time  a  substitution  of  the 
Massachusetts  system  for  the  New  York  estimate  system,  although  there 
is  a  strong  temptation  to  adopt  any  good  system  that  will  free  the  man- 
agers and  superintendents  of  institutions  and  provide  for  economic 
administration.  The  Governor's  recommendation  as  to  the  abolition 
of  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  accompanied  by  the  sugges- 
tion that  action  thereon  be  deferred  pending  the  transmission  of  this 
report. 

Effect  of  1916  Gov.  Whitman's  tentative  budget  proposals  and  his  annual  message, 
p0Usafsetupon"  transmitted  to  the  Legislature  on  January  5,  1916.  bear  significantly 
tem!ma  upon  the  retention  of  the  estimate  system.  Under  the  Appropriating 

Act,  as  there  proposed,  the  evils  of  payment  before  audit  would  have 
been  ended.  As  a  means  to  that  end,  there  would  have  been  no  fur- 
ther advances  by  the  state  treasurer  to  local  treasurers  upon  the  war- 
rant of  the  comptroller  to  cover  the  amount  of  the  estimate  approved 
by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  for  three  months'  purchases.  The  only  pay- 
ments, except  those  out  of  a  small  emergency  or  petty  cash  fund,  would 
have  been  by  the  state  treasurer  after  the  delivery  of  the  goods  and 
the  comptroller's  audit.  While  the  proposed  act  did  not  specifically 
refer  to  the  estimate  system,  and,  if  it  had  become  law,  the  system  would 
have  continued,  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  in  the  message  for 
the  abolition  of  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  would  have  ended 
the  official  life  of  the  only  person  charged  specifically  with  the  duty 
of  estimate  revision. 


59 

Moreover,  in  the  view  of  Mr.  Charles  S.  Hervey,  who  aided  in  the 
preparation  of  the  budget  proposals,  enactment  of  these  proposals  would 
have  rendered  the  estimate  system  unnecessary.  He  based  this  view 
upon  the  segregated  form  of  the  appropriation,  which  would  operate 
as  an  "annual  estimate,"  and  which  fixed  the  limits  within  which  the 
money  could  be  used  by  the  institutions,  and  thought  the  institution 
heads,  who  aided  in  the  preparation  of  the  budget,  could  be  trusted 
without  central  supervision  to  expend  wisely  and  within  the  limits  of 
the  act.  He  cited  the  administration  of  the  City  of  New  York  as  an 
example  of  this  method  of  budgetary  control,  but  conceded  that  in- 
New  York  City  there  is  a  central  departmental  control. 

The  legislature,  however,  departed  materially  from  the  provisions  of  Effect  of   . 

, .  111  ._  Appropriation 

these  proposals  (Laws  1916,  C.  646).  It  left  undisturbed  the  present  Actof  1916. 
provisions  of  law  as  to  the  advances  of  funds  upon  the  estimates  approved 
by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  It  limited  in  detail  the  appropriations  for 
"personal  service'',  and  in  the  same  form  as  in  the  budget  proposals. 
This  would  eliminate  in  the  quarterly  estimates  the  need  of  the  item 
"salaries  and  wages".  But  in  respect  of  "maintenance  and  operation",  it 
made  its  appropriations  under  substantially  larger  and  more  general  titles 
or  schedules.  The  comptroller  was,  however,  directed  to  define  the 
classifications  of  expense,  "defining  the  purpose  for  which  moneys  appro- 
priated under  each  title  may  be  expended".  It  would  appear  from  this 
that,  if  there  were  no  estimate  system,  the  comptroller  could  periodically 
bring  to  book  any  institution  spending  money  for  any  other  purpose  than 
he  had  defined.  The  definitions  are  binding  upon  the  expenditures  and 
the  audit  thereof. 

The  onlv  other  power  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  that  requires  comment  Purchases 

J  f  ..  i  •        under  Joint 

is  that  relating  to  purchases  under  joint  contracts,  center  red  upon  i  Contracts, 
in  1903  (Laws  1903,  C.  473;  Sec.  48  S.  C.  L.).  He  does  not  buy.  His 
whole  relation  to  the  subject  seems  somewhat  attenuated.  He  calls  an 
annual  meeting  of  the  institution  superintendents,  at  which  a  purchasing 
committee  of  six  is  named.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  names  its  chairman. 
This  committee  decides  upon  those  articles  which  it  is  practicable  to 
purchase  by  joint  contract,  upon  the  specifications  of  the  articles  and  the 
terms  of  the  contracts.  The  committee  subsequently  meets  and  considers 
proposals  or  bids  and  may  make  awards  and  execute  contracts,  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  Deliveries  are  at  the  several 
institutions  and  not  at  a  distributing  depot.  The  second  Deputy  Fiscal 


60 

Supervisor  is  secretary  of  the  committee,  without  compensation.  Other- 
wise, there  seems  to  be  no  one  in  the  Fiscal  Supervisor's  office  giving 
any  especial  attention  to  this  system.  It  is  incredible  that  these  busy 
superintendents  and  stewards,  without  any  paid  staff,  can  watch  the 
markets,  draw  adequate  specifications  and  contracts,  test  competing  prod- 
ucts, and  see  that  the  deliveries  meet  the  specifications. 

There  is  a  common  conception,  based  upon  some  experiences  in  the 
commercial  world,  that  central  purchasing  saves  much.  The  evidence 
before  me  indicates  that  advantageous  central  purchasing  for  the  state 
institutions  works  well  within  a  range  more  limited  than  is  generally  appre- 
ciated. One  reason  that  militates  against  the  complete  success  of  the  system 
is  that  the  institutions  are  situated  in  all  parts  of  the  state,  and  the  goods 
bought  under  the  joint  contract  are  shipped  directly  to  the  institutions 
irrespective  of  heavy  carrying  charges,  and  further,  that  the  goods  cannot 
be  properly  tested  upon  delivery  to  see  if  the  specifications  have  been  met. 
An  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  advantageous  trade  conditions  are 
established  through  central  purchasing  is  where  the  transportation  cost  is 
more  than  the  saving  through  the  better  prices  obtained.  The  Secretary 
of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  testified  before  a  legislative  committee  in 
1911  that  an  attempt  to  buy  for  all  the  institutions  would  limit  the  num- 
ber of  bidders,  and  that  this  might  result  in  a  combination  to  maintain 
prices. 

Gov.  Hughes,  in  his  first  message  to  the  legislature,  favored  central 
purchasing  for  all  the  three  great  groups  of  state  institutions,  but  in 
later  messages  materially  qualified  his  recommendation  and  favored 
central  purchasing  only  to  the  extent  that  it  was  found  advisable.  The 
debate  at  a  legislative  committee  hearing  in  1915  on  the  bills  for  a  "board 
of  control"  for  state  institutions  revealed  clearly  the  unwisdom  of  taking 
from  the  Hospital  Commision  the  power  to  purchase  supplies  and  equip- 
ment for  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  and  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  a 
central  board  unfamiliar  with  the  care  of  the  insane  and  with  a  natural 
inclination  to  establish  uniform  grades  of  supplies  unsuited  to  the  widely 
varying  needs  of  the  hospitals  and  the  miscellaneous  charitable  institu- 
tions and  the  prisons. 

Mr.  Wright,  in  his  report,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  after 
his  study  of  the  system  in  New  York  and  Iowa,  concluded  that  "an 
institution  with  an  inmate  population  of  400  or  over  can  generally  secure 
as  low  prices  as  can  a  central  body  with  power  to  contract  for  large 


61 

quantities".  The  Secretary  of  the  Hospital  Commission  states  that 
experience  has  shown  that  many  articles  cannot  be  bought  advantageously 
on  joint  contract,  and  that  independent  purchasing  of  such  articles  has 
superseded  joint  purchasing.  He  states :  "The  advantages  from  joint 
purchasing  are  greatly  overestimated  by  some." 

In  1914,  as  a  result  of  voluntary  cooperation,  a  joint  committee  for 
all  the  institutions,  charitable,  the  hospitals  and  the  prisons,  bought  under 
joint  contract  all  the  coal  required.  The  purchase  was  on  a  British 
thermal  unit  basis,  the  amount  paid  being  graduated  on  the  number  of 
heat  units  in  the  delivered  product.  In  the  following  year,  the  institutions 
returned  to  independent  buying.  The  coal  in  1914  cost  $2.50  per  ton; 
in  1915  it  cost  $1.85  per  ton;  and  in  1914  the  grade  of  coal,  which  was 
the  only  grade  that  could  be  bought  advantageously  under  joint  contract, 
was  unsuited  to  the  needs  of  some  of  the  institutions.  The  Deputy  Fiscal 
Supervisor  testified  that  he  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  to  ascertain 
that  there  is  any  saving  of  money  from  the  joint  contract  system,  and 
that  in  the  case  of  most  supplies  it  is  cheaper  to  buy  in  the  open  market. 

It  is  evident  that  if  the  state  is  to  enjoy  to  the  full  such  advantage 
as  does  and  should  come  from  central  purchasing,  there  must  be  found 
another  administrative  method  than  that  now  obtaining  in  the  department 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor. 

I  doubt  if  it  is  generally  realized  that  most  of  the  other  work  per-  Present  Dupii- 
f ormed  by  the  clerks  in  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  of  late  ifabor  by 
been  assumed  or  is,  in  substance,  done  over  again  by  clerks  in  the  office  a 
of  the  comptroller.  In  1913  the  legislature  provided  that  before  any 
contract  made  by  or  for  any  state  institution  shall  be  executed  or  become 
effective  when  such  contract  exceeds  $1,000  in  amount,  it  shall  first 
have  been  approved  by  the  comptroller.  It  also  provided  that  when 
any  liability  of  any  nature  shall  have  been  incurred,  notice  shall  imme- 
diately be  given  the  comptroller  in  writing;  also,  that  when  any  sup- 
plies or  materials  are  furnished,  a  duplicate  of  the  notice  shall  be 
delivered  to  the  comptroller  (Laws  1913,  C.  342).  In  the  comptroller's 
annual  report  in  1914,  he  said:  "By  the  enactment  of  Chapter  342, 
Laws  of  1913,  the  machinery  was  created  which  makes  possible  a  real 
control  of  the  State's  business.  This  law  is  based  upon  the  theory 
that  the  only  satisfactory  check  upon  the  expenditure  of  the  State's 
funds  can  be  made  by  the  supervision  and  audit  of  an  office  which  is 
not  concerned  in  creating  the  appropriation  or  in  expending  it."  When 


62 

the  bureau  was  first  established  the  comptroller  thought  it  would  be 
necessary  to  employ  a  large  force  of  traveling  auditors  to  go  to  all 
the  state  institutions  and  departments  outside  of  Albany,  and  in  1914 
an  appropriation  of  $79,500  was  granted  for  this  work.  The  comp- 
troller, however,  has  been  able  to  do  the  work  by  means  of  his  regular 
staff,  and  the  appropriation  for  1916  was  reduced  to  $43,300.  As  a 
result  of  the  practice  evolved  under  this  law,  the  comptroller  and  Fiscal 
Supervisor  both  check  all  orders  or  requisitions  against  the  estimates, 
and  the  vouchers  are  checked  by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  against  the  order 
or  estimate  and  the  treasurer's  report  and  sent  to  the  comptroller  for 
further  examination  as  a  part  of  his  final  audit.  There  are  three  audits 
of  each  account.  The  legislature  has  also  provided  that  no  payment 
for  new  construction  or  alteration  in  a  state  institution  building  shall 
be  made  unless  the  State  Architect,  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  Comp- 
troller all  approve  (Laws  of  1914,  C.  111). 


Salary  Classification  Commission. 

Creation  of  the         The  Salary  Classification  Commission  was  established  in   1899.     At 

Commission.  .  .    .  f      t 

that  time  the  comptroller  was  revising  the  monthly  estimates  of  the 
institutions  and  perceived  the  inequality  of  salaries  paid  for  the  same 
or  similar  work  throughout  the  charitable  institutions.  All  salaries  were 
then  fixed  by  the  local  boards  of  managers.  By  tacking  on  a  clause 
to  Section  17  of  the  State  Finance  Law,  which  bore  a  title  wholly  inap- 
propriate for  the  purpose,  namely,  "Itemized  and  Monthly  Accounts 
of  Public  Officers,"  the  legislature  established  that  which  has  come 
to  be  known  as  the  Salary  Classification  Commission.  The  provision 
was  simply  that  the  comptroller  and  the  president  of  the  State  Board 
of  Charities,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  governor,  should  classify 
into  grades  the  officers  and  employees  of  the  state  charitable  institutions, 
and  should  fix  salaries  and  wages  therein.  In  1903  the  requirement 
that  the  governor  should  approve  the  classification  into  grades  was 
dispensed  with,  and  the  power  to  fix  salaries  was  converted  into  the 
duty  of  recommending  to  the  governor,  once  a  year  and  in  September, 
such  changes  in  salaries  and  wages  as  might  seem  proper,  the  changes 
not  to  be  made  unless  the  governor  should  approve  (Laws  1903,  C. 
239).  After  first  recommending  that  the  commission  be  abolished,  and 
then  importuning  for  years  to  be  made  a  member,  the  Fiscal  Super- 


63 

visor  was  added  to  the  commission  in  1914.  His  view  was  that  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  the  commission  had  there  been  a  super- 
vising fiscal  officer  in  1899. 

In  practice,  from   1899  to   1914,  the  president  of  the  State  Board  HowtheCom- 

„.,         .   .  .  ..,..-.,  mission  has 

of  Charities  was  recognized  as  the  representative  of  the  institutions  Worked, 
and  was  the  only  member  of  the  commission  having  a  real  knowledge 
of  their  needs.  His  decision  on  the  requests  for  new  positions  or 
increases  in  salaries  was  generally  controlling.  After  a  hearing  by  the 
commission,  the  president  and  secretary  would  go  over  the  minutes 
and  the  president  would  decide  upon  the  requests  made  at  the  hearing, 
and  the  secretary  would  go  about  informally  getting  the  approval  of 
the  other  members.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  been  a  member  for 
so  short  a  period  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  say  what,  if  any,  effect 
his  entrance  upon  the  commission  will  make  in  its  decisions.  The 
secretary  of  the  commission  said:  "The  work  of  the  President  of  the 
State  Board  is  the  basis  of  all  action  by  the  Commission." 

Gov.  Hughes  furnished  the  only  instance  of  withholding  executive 
consent  to  the  findings  of  the  commission.  This  was  by  reason  of 
unusual  expenditures  by  the  state  at  that  time.  There  have  been  long 
periods  when  it  was  impossible  to  obtain  executive  attention  to  the 
recommendations  of  the  commission,  notably  from  April  29,  1913,  to 
December,  1914,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  executive  consideration,  when 
obtainable,  for  such  a  matter  as  the  recommendation  of  an  increase  of 
$2.50  per  month  in  the  wages  of  a  cook  could  not,  as  a  rule,  be  other- 
wise than  perfunctory. 

The  main  criticism  of  the  commission  by  institutional  heads  is  based 
upon  alleged  delay  in  action  upon  requests.  Much  of  this  criticism  has 
been  warranted.  Sometimes  the  delay  has  been  due  to  absence  of  one 
of  the  commission.  In  one  case  an  institution  asked  an  official  inter- 
pretation of  one  of  the  commission's  communications,  and  after  nine 
months  had  no  answer  and  went  about  the  matter  in  another  way.  The 
secretary  wrote  that  the  question  had  been  presented  to  the  governor; 
but  the  law  does  not  require  that  such  matters  be  presented  to  the 
governor. 

In  1912  there  was  in  course  of  construction  a  number  of  build- 
ings at  the  institution  called  Letchworth  Village,  as  a  part  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  great  plant  at  that  institution.  The  board  of  managers,' 
Mr.  Frank  A.  Vanderlip,  president,  observing  that  the  Fiscal  Super- 


64 

visor  watched  every  cent  of  expenditure  for  supplies,  but  that  there 
was  no  one  whose  duty  it  was  to  represent  the  state  and  watch  the 
contractors  who  were  engaged  upon  this  great  building  project,  wrote 
the  Salary  Classification  Commission  in  April,  1912,  asking  for  the 
authorization  of  a  position  to  be  entitled  "Superintendent  of  Construc- 
tion," the  incumbent  to  reside  at  the  institution  so  that  there  might  be 
continuous  inspection.  It  was  not  until  November,  1914,  that  the  place 
was  authorized,  and  it  had  required  a  communication  from  Mr.  Van- 
derlip  to  Gov.  Glynn  and  an  opinion  of  the  attorney-general  that  the 
place  could  be  authorized  under  another  title.  There  appears  to  be  no 
reason  why  this  opinion  could  not  have  been  obtained  by  the  Salary 
Classification  Commission  two  years  earlier. 

One  reason  for  the  delay  in  the  work  of  the  commission  is  the  infre- 
quency  of  meetings  of  the  commission,  although  it  does  meet  as  often  as 
is  required  by  the  statute.  One  result  is  that  desirable  employees,  seeking 
increases  in  salary,  are  lost  to  the  institutions  because  they  cannot  remain 
so  long  in  uncertainty  pending  the  action  of  the  commission.  Another 
result  is  that  employees  are  placed  in  authorized  positions  which  bear  titles 
wholly  foreign  to  the  work  actually  done.  There  has  been  no  revision  of 
or  change  in  the  schedules  of  the  commission  as  to  titles  or  salaries  since 
July  31,  1915. 

The  commission  has  left  the  institutions  in  uncertainty  as  to  the 
legal  status  of  its  schedules.  In  a  certain  case  the  commission  had 
authorized  an  increase  upon  the  request  of  an  institution.  The  Fiscal 
Supervisor  disapproved  the  increase  when  he  revised  the  quarterly  esti- 
mate. The  Fiscal  Supervisor  took  the  position  that  the  commission 
could  only  recommend.  The  commission  was  notified  but  failed  to  hold 
its  ground  or  to  join  issue  with  the  Fiscal  Supervisor. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  chairman  of  the  commission,  the  president 
of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  has  done  his  work  carefully,  and  that 
his  intention  has  been  to  compensate  the  state's  employees  on  a  standard 
that  bore  some  resemblance  to  that  adopted  by  the  other  state  institu- 
tional groups,  and  to  that  prevailing  in  municipal  or  private  service.  But 
he  has  not  had  the  staff  that  might  have  enabled  him  to  deal  with  salary 
schedules  upon  a  comprehensive  basis.  The  secretary  of  the  commission 
is  the  Superintendent  of  State  and  Alien  Poor,  is  the  only  employee, 
and,  as  such  secretary,  he  serves  for  what  is  practically  a  nominal  com- 
pensation. 


65 

The  salaries  paid  in  the  several  institutions  belonging  to  the  charitable  Disproportion- 
group  are  disproportionate.     Employees  will  leave  one  institution  and  Irfd  NeYdfess 
go  to  another,  where  the  pay  is  greater  for  similar  work.     Salaries  of  charitable'in- 
superintendents  have  been  fixed  upon  a  census  basis,  which  is  obviously  Sl 
illogical.     The  commission  having  once  created  a  position  by  giving  it 
a  title  in  its  schedule  always  lets  it  stand,  never  cuts  it  out.    The  secretary 
testified  that  the  commission  has  power  to  reduce  a  salary  when  it  is 
excessive,  but  it  never  does  it ;  that  there  are  changed  conditions  in  some 
of  the  institutions  calling  for  the  elimination  of  positions  and  the  reduc- 
tion of  salaries,  and  there  should  be  a  careful  revision  of  the  schedules, 
but  it  has  not  been  done. 

For  years  it  has  been  apparent  to  the  chairman  of  the  commission  Disproportion- 
and  to  others  that  there  is  a  wide  disparity  between  the  salaries  and  fn^spSs, 
wages  paid  in  the  three  great  institutional  groups,  the  charitable,  the  chaSSble  in- 
prisons  and  the  hospitals  for  the  insane.    Gov.  Hughes  said  in  his  message  st 
to  the  legislature  in  1908:  , 

"While  the  state  is  the  one  employer,  there  are  diversities  in 
existing  classifications  and  in  the  means  of  fixing  salaries  which 
are  wholly  unnecessary  and  subject  the  state  to  serious  disad- 
vantage. In  some  cases,  one  portion  of  the  state  service  in  effect 
competes  with  others  and  the  want  of  harmonious  action  breeds 
widespread  dissatisfaction." 

He  wrote  to  the  same  effect  in  his  message  in  1909. 

These  disparities  may  be  visualized  upon  inspection  of  comparative 
schedules  of  salaries  paid  in  the  charitable,  hospital  and  prison  groups. 
In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  highest  compensation  is  made  in  the 
hospitals,  the  next  in  the  prisons,  and  the  lowest  in  the  charitable  institu- 
tions. There  is  no  doubt  that  higher  salaries  should  be  paid  in  the 
hospital  service,  and  perhaps  in  the  prison  service,  due  to  special  condi- 
tions arising  in  part  out  of  the  difficulties  in  dealing  with  the  inmates  and 
surroundings  that  are  less  congenial  than  in  the  other  institutions,  and  to 
the  consequent  difficulty  of  attracting  and  retaining  employees  in  the 
hospitals  and  prisons.  But  it  is  still  true  that  a  just  proportion  has  not 
been  reached  and  consequently  that  there  is  need  of  readjustment.  These 
three  groups  of  institutional  service  constitute  about  40  per  cent,  of  the 
state's  civil  service  personnel. 


66 


this  Dispropor- 


The  passage  of  the  Appropriating  Act  of  1916  has  not  affected  this 
question  of  disproportion,  nor  was  it  the  expectation  of  the  legislature  or 
^  executive  that  it  would.  The  Governor,  in  his  message  of  January  5, 
1916,  recognized  that  readjustment  of  salary  and  wage  standards  fell 
within  the  field  of  the  Senate  Civil  Service  Committee,  which  has  been 
"making  a  scientific  study  of  the  personal  service  of  the  state",  and 
recommended  that  the  proposals  of  the  committee,  then  in  the  course  of 
preparation,  become  law  when  completed  and  be  applied  to  the  rates  sug- 
gested in  the  Governor's  budget  proposals.  The  bill  proposed  by  the 
committee  was  not  adopted  by  the  legislature,  passing  the  senate  but  fail- 
ing in  the  assembly. 

The  passage  of  the  Appropriating  Act  of  1916  did,  however,  impose 
sweeping  limitations  upon  the  field  of  labor  of  the  Salary  Classification 
Commission.  Ignoring  the  schedules  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commis- 
sion, the  legislature,  with  the  approval  of  the  governor,  has  adopted  its 
own  titles  and  its  own  maximum  rates  of  compensation,  and  even  fixed  the 
number  of  positions  under  each  title  in  the  institutional  service.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  by  no  act  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commission  can  a  salary  be 
increased  beyond  the  legislative  rate,  and  such  is  the  ruling  of  the  comp- 
troller. The  attorney-general  has  written  an  opinion  in  which  he  holds 
that  the  Salary  Classification  Commission  may  fix  salaries  at  a  lesser 
amount  than  that  carried  for  the  office  in  the  appropriation  bill,  but,  with 
all  respect,  I  may  say  that  I  cannot  be  sure  that  the  attorney-general 
is  correct  in  this  ruling.  In  the  first  place,  the  Salary  Classification  Com- 
mission is  not  empowered  to  "fix  salaries",  but  only  to  "recommend 
changes"  to  the  governor.  Again,  in  the  Appropriating  Act  it  is  provided 
that  the  appointing  officer  may  fix  the  salary  at  a  lesser  sum.  The  Salary 
Classification  Commission  is  not  the  appointing  officer.  Finally,  the 
Governor,  in  his  message,  showed  what  was  intended  by  his  budget  pro- 
posal, which  was  substantially  adopted  by  the  legislature  as  to  form  of 
"personal  service"  appropriations.  The  Governor  said: 

"Through  this  form  of  enactment  the  legislature  may  express 
its  administrative  policy  in  the  terms  of  exact  appropriations. 
*  *  *  All  the  salaries  and  wages  to  be  paid  by  the  state  are 
shown  against  the  title  of  the  various  positions  in  the  activities  to 
which  they  are  assigned." 

In  enacting  this  schedule  of  titles  and  salaries,  the  legislature  in  effect 
constituted  itself  a  salary  classification  commission,  and  while  it  is  easy 


67 

to  see  why  it  gave  the  appointing  powers  the  right  to  reduce  salaries  as  a 
means  of  discipline,  it  will  not,  I  think,  be  readily  held  that  it  intended  to 
give  another  salary  classification  commission  the  power  to  make  another 
schedule  at  lower  rates.  It  is  apparent  not  only  that  the  Salary  Classifica- 
tion Commission  cannot  increase  salaries,  as  the  comptroller  has  ruled, 
but  that  it  cannot,  at  least  pending  the  passage  by  the  legislature  of  an 
appropriating  act  of  another  type,  classify  positions  into  new  grades, 
or  create  new  positions  "from  time  to  time".  Moreover,  if  the  Septem- 
ber recommendations  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commission  for 
changes  in  salaries  were  ever  utilized  by  a  governor  or  a  legislature  in 
preparation  of  the  appropriation  bills,  which  does  not  appear  and  which  I 
do  not  believe,  the  need  for  this  is  at  an  end.  The  legislature  at  its  last 
session  created  a  new  budget-making  agency,  consisting  of  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee  and  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
each  with  a  staff,  to  continue  in  office  between  legislative  sessions,  and  to 
gather  material  for  the  budget  from  institutional  and  departmental  heads, 
so  that  the  governor  may  be  prepared  to  recommend  appropriations  in 
the  first  week  in  January,  and  the  legislative  committees  not  later  than 
March  15th  (Laws  1916,  C.  130). 

To  sum  it  up,  there  is  nothing  left  to  justify  the  continued  existence 
of  the  commission. 

The  Senate  Committee  on  Civil  Service,  Hon.   Clinton  T.  Horton,  Senate  Civil 

*        •        i    •       -tr\-t  i-  •  •  •    -1  •  e     t        Service  Com- 

chairman,  was  authorized  in  1915  to  investigate  the  civil  service  of  the  mitteeand 
state,  with  particular  reference  to  salaries,  grades  and  duties  of  officers  standards, 
and  employees.  The  inquiry  extended  into  every  branch  of  the  civil 
service  of  the  state.  The  work  was  begun  on  April  26,  1915,  and  the  first 
report  was  issued  March  27,  1916.  This  report  contained  a  proposed  act 
to  amend  the  civil  service  law  in  relation  to  the  classification  and  grading 
of  state  employees,  a  code  of  specifications  for  personal  service  accompany- 
ing the  proposed  act.  This  code  was  to  become  a  part  of  the  law  itself.  In 
this  code  were  provided  basic  standards  for  titles,  duties,  qualifications, 
grades  and  rates  of  compensation  covering  the  entire  institutional  service 
of  the  state.  The  Civil  Service  Commission  was  in  substance  made  the 
administrator  of  the  law  and  the  medium  of  suggestions  for  future 
change  in  rates,  with  broad  powers  over  titles,  grades  and  qualifications. 
All  the  schedules  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commission  were  expressly 
superseded.  The  Executive  recommended  the  passage  of  the  bill  and 
characterized  the  work  of  the  committee  as  a  scientific  study  of  the  per- 


68 

sonal  service  with  a  view  to  weeding  out  unnecessary  positions  and 
placing  all  state  employees  on  a  basis  of  compensation  which  would  give 
the  state  a  fair  return  for  salaries  paid.  The  bill  passed  the  senate  but 
failed  of  report  in  the  assembly.  I  have  carefully  examined  the  report  of 
Senator  Horton's  committee  and  am  convinced  not  only  that  it  is  based 
upon  sound  principles  of  investigation,  but  that  the  committee  has  com- 
prehensively considered  the  long  standing  problems  of  inequality  and 
disparity  in  all  institutional  service  compensation  and  has  adopted  reason- 
able standards  that  should  be  tested  in  actual  experience. 

Building  Improvement  Commission. 

of  the  The  governor  is  chairman  of  a  statutory  committee  that  has  come  to 
be  called  the  Building  Improvement  Commission.  The  other  members 
are  the  president  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor. The  commission  approves  or  disapproves  the  state  architect's 
plans  and  specifications  for  all  state  charitable  institution  buildings  and 
all  alterations  or  repairs  therein,  and  may  approve  the  letting  of  con- 
tracts for  such  work,  and  no  work  can  be  done  under  such  plans  unless 
and  until  there  is  such  approval  (S.  C.  L.  §  49). 

This  commission  was  created  by  the  legislature  in  1902,  simultaneously 
with  the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  at  the  suggestion  of  Gov. 
Odell  and  over  the  opposition  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  The  same 
work  had  been  done,  and,  as  far  as  I  am  informed,  well  done,  by  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  through  a  standing  committee,  beginning  by 
common  consent  in  the  administration  of  Gov.  Cleveland  in  1883,  and 
under  express  provision  of  law  in  1899  (Laws  1899,  C.  504).  The  State 
Board  has  performed  a  similar  service  for  the  county  almshouses  except 
in  New  York  City  (Poor  Law,  §  118),  and  under  its  power  to  establish 
rules  for  the  reception  and  retention  of  inmates  in  private  institutions 
has  done  likewise  for  such  institutions. 
Exception  of  I  have  considered  the  testimony  as  to  the  circumstances  that  resulted 

se  lty  in  the  passage  of  the  law  excepting  New  York  City  from  the  control 


from  State  **  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  over  building  plans  for  almshouses, 
and  it  is  my  view  that  there  was  no  adequate  reason  for  the  making  of 
this  exception  and  there  is  none  for  the  retention  of  it. 

HOW  the  Com-         Although  the  commission   was   established   in   1902,   no   minutes  of 

Worked.  *s       any  meeting  of  the  commission  could  be  found  prior  to  February,  1905, 

when,  under  Governor  Higgins,  it  met,  organized,   named  a  secretary 


69 

and  acquired  a  rubber  stamp.  The  staff  of  the  commission  consists  of 
a  secretary,  who  has  usually  received  compensation  to  the  extent  of  $500 
a  year,  never  more.  If  there  were  any  buildings  erected,  or  any  altera- 
tions to  buildings,  at  state  charitable  institutions  from  1902  to  1905, 
and  there  must  have  been,  the  procedure  must  have  been  extra  legal. 
Meetings  since  1905  have  been  irregular  and  frequently  ill  attended.  The 
greatest  number  of  meetings  was  sixteen,  Gov.  Hughes'  first  year  in  office ; 
then  they  grew  less  and  less  until  within  the  two  years  1911  and  1912, 
there  was  one  meeting.  During  all  this  time,  all  new  construction  or 
repair  work  was  held  up  or  was  going  on  irrespective  of  the  law,  or 
plans  were  being  approved  by  individual  action  of  members  of  the  com- 
mission, although  meetings  of  the  commission  for  the  purpose  of  joint 
consideration  were  required  by  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  law.  In 
the  first  eleven  months  of  1915,  there  were  nine  meetings  of  the  com- 
mission. 

The  President  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  was  regarded  as  the 
representative  of  the  institutions  on  this  commission,  as  he  was  on  the 
Salary  Classification  Commission.  He  attributed  the  decline  in 
the  number  of  meetings  during  Gov.  Hughes'  administration  from  sixteen 
in  the  first  year  to  seven  in  the  second,  seven  in  the  third  and  three 
in  the  fourth,  to  the  conviction  that  was  evidently  growing  that  the 
work  of  the  commission  was  in  the  main  too  trivial  to  justify  any  more 
attention  than  was  absolutely  necessary. 

After  waiting  three  years  to  organize,  the  commission,  at  its  first 
session,  in  February,  1905,  passed  resolutions  calling  for  greater  expedition 
in  construction  work,  and  then,  at  the  same  session,  failed  to  approve 
an  important  contract,  already  a  month  old,  because  the  commission 
had  no  rubber  stamp  to  use  as  a  convenient  means  of  endorsing  approval, 
and  it  was  March  16  before  the  contract  was  properly  endorsed.  One 
meeting  was  held  at  which  the  only  member  present  was  the  President 
of  the  State  Board,  and  the  minutes  recite  that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor 
was  "on  telephone  call",  and  yet  motions  were  made,  seconded  arid 
.carried  unanimously.  In  the  minutes  of  another  meeting  it  appears: 
"Present — President  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor later  supporting  any  action  taken  at  the  meeting."  It  does  not 
appear  that  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  ever  confirmed  this  particular  grant 
of  power,  or  that  the  action  taken  at  the  meeting  was  ever  ratified. 


70 

A  reading  of  the  minutes  discloses  that  the  governor  was  called 
upon  to  give  his  time  to  the  careful  consideration  of  such  matters  as 
'  a  shack  over  a  root  cellar,  plastering  in  a  toilet  room,  the  resetting  of 
register  frames  for  eight  dollars,  one  extra  drop  light,  the  substitution 
of  black  slate  for  green  slate,  a  piggery  and  a  hen  house — a  list  which 
might  be  continued  at  great  length.  When  these  plans  reached  this 
commission,  they  bore  endorsements  showing  that  they  had  been  passed 
upon  by  a  large  number  of  officers  and  clerks,  all  presumably  competent. 
The  minutes  show  many  instances  of  unexplained  and  protracted  delays 
between  the  dates  of  contracts  and  approval  by  the  commission,  and 
repeated  cases  of  individual  and  separate  action  on  plans  from  time 
to  time,  and  then  approval  en  bloc  at  some  belated  meeting  of  the  com- 
mission. 

The  President  of  the  State  Board  characterized  it  as  a  "useless  com- 
mission", and  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  said  that  neither  the  governor  nor 
he  should  be  members  of  it. 

Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds  and  Buildings. 

In  1899,  the  State  Board  of  Charities  was  given  the  power  to  approve 
or  reject  the  sites  for  new  almshouses  in  the  several  counties  of  the 
state  (Laws  1899,  C.  133).  Special  commissions,  usually  named  by 
the  governor,  selected  sites  for  new  state  charitable  institutions,  exhibit- 
ing varying  degrees  of  wisdom.  There  was  no  repository  of  the  informa- 
tion and  data  acquired  by  the  several  commissions,  for  the  use  of  succeed- 
ing commissions.  There  was  no  guaranty  of  course  that  commissioners 
would  be  named  who  possessed  particular  information  relating  to  existing 
institutions,  their  needs  and  the  plans  for  their  development  by  colonization 
and  otherwise,  and  who  would  be  free  from  local  or  self-interest  in  a 
given  site. 

In  1900,  the  Prison  Association  of  New  York  led  a  movement  for  the 
establishment  of  a  greatly  needed  new  institution  to  be  called  "The  State 
Reformatory  for  Misdemeanants."  This  movement  had  the  earnest 
support  of  the  Association  of  Magistrates  and  other  organizations.  The 
institution  received  legislative  authorization  in  1912.  It  appears  from 
the  testimony  that  in  1913,  a  Deputy  Fiscal  Supervisor,  possessing  the 
desire  to  be  considered  in  the  location  of  a  site  for  this  institution,  pro- 
cured the  introduction  of  a  bill  to  create  a  new  "Commission  on  Sites, 
Grounds  and  Buildings",  of  which  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  was  to  be  the 


71 

chairman.  Both  the  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  State  Board  of 
Chanties  testified  that  the  board  took  no  action  on  the  subject.  The 
President  said  the  board  did  not  know  of  the  bill  until  it  had  become 
law  and  that  he  would  have  opposed  it  had  he  known  of  it.  Both  said 
that  neither  the  board  nor  any  member  or  officer  of  it  had  favored  the 
bill.  The  President  said  that  in  practice  it  has  turned  out  that  the  work 
of  the  commission  has  interfered  with  that  of  the  State  Board.  It 
appeared,  however,  that  at  a  committee  hearing  on  the  bill  in  the  office 
of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  had  spoken 
in  favor  of  the  bill,  had  suggested  an  amendment,  and  had  said  that 
he  appeared  in  his  personal  capacity. 

The  bill  became  law  in  1913,  and  provided  in  substance  that  sites 
for  new  state  charitable  institutions,  and  for  new  buildings  at  existing 
institutions  of  that  class  should  be  fixed  by  the  commission,  with  appeal 
only  to  the  governor,  and  that  the  commission  might  buy  or  condemn 
property  for  such  sites.  The  commission  consisted  of  the  Fiscal  Super- 
visor, a  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  the  State  Architect, 
a  member  of  the  Conservation  Commission,  the  Commissioner  of  Agri- 
culture, or  their  representatives,  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Finance  and  the  chairman  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  (Laws  1913,  C.  625).  The  legislature  appropriated  $75,000 
for  acquiring  property,  and  $5,000  for  commission  expenses  (Laws  1913, 
C.  791). 

During  the  first  year  of  the  life  of  the  commission  its  report  shows  HowtheCom- 
that  the  only  real  results  were  the  approval  of  a  request  of  one  institution  Worked, 
to  buy  additional  land,  and  the  location  of  several  buildings  at  existing 
institutions,  including  a  barn  and  a  dairy,  and  a  change  in  the  location 
of  some  other  buildings.    In  the  second  and  third  years,  nothing  was 
accomplished.     Genuine  but  unavailing  efforts  were  made  to  select  a 
site  for  the  new  institution  for  misdemeanants,  and  the  appropriation  of 
$50,000  for  a  site  for  that  greatly  needed  institution  has  lapsed. 

Periods  of  six  months  and  a  year  went  by  without  a  meeting  of  the 
commission.  There  has  been  no  meeting  since  January  26,  1915.  On  one 
occasion,  the  commission  considered  a  matter  of  some  difficulty  at  con- 
siderable length,  and  then  referred  much  of  it  to  the  local  board  of  man- 
agers. One  institution  desired  the  commission  to  acquire  a  certain  valu- 
able tract  of  land.  The  commission  laid  the  request  "on  the  table."  Later 
the  institution  felt  compelled  to  ignore  the  commission.  It  went  ahead 


72 

and  bought  the  tract,  and  the  State  Board  of  Charities  has  commended  the 
institution  for  the  purchase.  As  an  example  of  defmiteness  of  expression, 
a  declaration  in  the  first  report  deserves  attention :  "After  due  delibera- 
tion, it  was  agreed  to  locate  north  or  south  of  the  line  between  Albany  and 
Syracuse." 

Not  only  has  there  been  no  meeting  of  the  commission  since  January, 
1915,  but  the  commission  failed  in  1916  to  request  such  appropriation  as 
might  be  necessary  to  enable  it  to  discharge  its  duties.  All  the  original 
appropriation  of  $80,000  lapsed,  except  $572.33. 

Of  course  the  local  boards  of  managers  have  gone  on  selecting  sites 
for  new  buildings.  The  work  could  not  stop  ;  the  commission  has  not  met ; 
the  commission  has  been  ignored.  No  notice  has  been  sent  by  the  com- 
mission to  the  institutions  that  they  must  come  to  it  for  authorizations. 
The  chairman  explains  that  the  institutions  "do  not  care  to  avail  them- 
selves of  our  work."  One  reason  given  for  failure  to  hold  a  meeting  is 
that  the  administration  has  indicated  that  the  state  of  the  treasury  is  not 
such  as  to  encourage  expenditure  for  sites  for  new  institutions.  Assuming 
that  that  is  the  case,  this  would  not  excuse  the  commission  for  its  failure 
to  act  on  sites  for  new  buildings  at  existing  institutions,  or  upon  requests 
of  existing  institutions  to  extend  their  plants. 

The  truth  is  that  the  chairman  has  found  it  practically  impossible  to 
induce  attendance  at  meetings.  The  commission  is  unwieldy.  Its  mem- 
bers are  not  interested,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  are  not.  Gen. 
Rosendale,  the  representative  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  or  his 
representative,  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board,  did  attend  the  meetings 
of  the  commission.  At  one  meeting,  when  a  determined  effort  was  made 
to  secure  attendance,  the  State  Board  was  the  only  body  represented  in 
person  and  not  by  a  subordinate.  On  that  occasion,  each  of  two  of  the 
subordinates  purported  to  act  for  two  of  the  members  of  the  commission, 
and  each  of  them  purported  to  represent  a  member  of  the  commission 
who  could  not  under  the  law  send  a  representative.  When  asked  to 
account  for  the  breakdown  of  the  commission,  the  chairman  invited 
attention  to  the  make-up  of  the  commission  and  to  his  experience  in 
attempting  to  hold  meetings,  saying:  "It  is  not  possible  to  get  them 
together  to  transact  business."  When  it  dawned  on  Senator  Frawley, 
chairman  of  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  and  thus  a  member  of  the 
commission,  that  the  commission  was  called  on  under  the  law  to  tell  a 
board  of  managers  of  an  established  institution  where  to  locate  a  new 


73 

building,  he  said :  "It  is  silly."  The  chairman  of  the  commission  testified 
in  substance  that  the  commission  is  a  failure,  and  the  Deputy  Fiscal 
Supervisor  said:  "It  has  been  dead  for  two  years,"  and  that  the  com- 
mission should  be  abolished.  The  board  of  managers  of  Letchworth 
Village  state  in  their  last  annual  report :  "The  board  agrees  with  the  State 
Architect  and  other  members  of  this  commission  in  their  view  that  it 
serves  no  good  purpose  and  results  in  a  duplication  of  work  and  effort 
not  commensurate  with  any  possibility  of  accomplishment."  In  1915, 
the  senate  passed  a  bill  to  end  the  life  of  the  commission,  but  it  was  not 
reported  from  committee  in  the  assembly. 

If  the  commission  was  a  serviceable  factor  in  state  administration, 
all  eyes  would  turn  to  it  as  the  body  to  select  a  new  site  for  the  Yorktown 
institution,  the  New  York  State  Training  School  for  Boys,  which  must 
be  built  elsewhere  than  on  the  Croton  watershed.  But  I  venture  to  say 
that  for  this  purpose  no  one  has  given  the  commission  a  thought. 

Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble-Minded,  Criminals  and  Other 

Defectives. 

This  board  is  not  mentioned  specifically  in  the  commission  entrusted  Creation  of  th< 
to  me,  but  I  regard  it  as  so  intimately  related  to  the  "affairs  of  the  State 
Board  of  Charities,"  and  to  the  welfare  of  perhaps  the  most  unfortunate 
class  of  the  state's  wards,  that  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  report  on  it. 

In  1912,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  providing,  through 
an  addition  to  the  Public  Health  Law,  for  the  appointment  by  the  gov- 
ernor of  a  "Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble-Minded,  Criminals  and  Other 
Defectives."  (This  title  is  the  only  instance  known  to  me  in  the  law 
where  criminals,  as  a  class,  are  called  defectives.)  The  bill  provided  that 
the  board  should  consist  of  one  surgeon,  one  neurologist  and  one  prac- 
titioner of  medicine,  each  to  have  been  engaged  in  regular  practice  for 
ten  years.  Each  was  to  receive  $10  per  diem  and  expenses.  The  board 
was  to  go  among  the  hospitals  for  the  insane,  the  prisons  and  the  state 
charitable  institutions,  and  consider  the  mental  and  physical  condition, 
the  records  and  family  history  of  the  "feeble-minded,  epileptic,  criminal 
and  other  defective"  inmates  found  in  such  institutions.  If  the  majority 
of  the  board  thought  procreation  by  any  such  person  would  produce 
children  with  an  inherent  tendency  to  crime,  insanity,  feeble-mindedness, 
idiocy,  or  imbecility,  and  if  there  was  no  probability  that  the  condition  of 
such  person  would  improve  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  procreation 


74 

by  any  such  person  advisable,  or  if  the  physical  or  mental  condition  of 
any  such  person  would  be  substantially  improved  thereby,  then  one  of 
the  members  of  the  board  should  perform  on  such  person  an  operation 
for  the  prevention  of  procreation.  The  board  must  procure  from  a  judge 
the  appointment  of  counsel  for  such  person  before  he  should  be  examined. 

Those  accustomed  to  watch  such  legislation  had  no  notion  that  the 
bill  would  pass.  There  were  no  hearings  and  no  public  discussion.  The 
bill  did  pass  and  became  law  (Laws  1912,  C.  445).  Gov.  Hughes  had 
not  signed  a  similar  bill,  but  Gov.  Dix  asked  the  advice  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  who,  speaking  for  the  State 
Board,  advised  the  Governor  to  sign  the  bill,  believing  it  was  a  "step 
in  the  right  direction",  and  the  Governor  signed  the  bill.  The  board 
was  appointed  and  appropriations  for  the  work  of  the  board  from  time 
to  time  have  amounted  to  $16,700. 

HowthekBoard  The  board  has  not  performed  a  single  operation.  It  has,  however, 
examined  200  inmates,  about  one-half  of  whom  are  females,  and  has 
listed  all  of  them  as  proper  subjects  for  the  operation.  Operation 
upon  these  200  cases  awaits  the  determination  of  an  action  or  proceeding 
now  pending  in  the  New  York  Supreme  Court  for  Albany  County.  This 
action  is  in  its  first  stages  and  has  not  yet  been  submitted  to  the  court  for- 
its  decision.  It  is  on  its  way  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
The  case  has  been  brought  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law.  In 
New  Jersey,  a  similar  law  has  been  declared  unconstitutional.  In  Wash- 
ington, it  has  been  declared  constitutional.  This  is  what  there  is  to  show 
for  an  expenditure  of  $16,700. 

The  work  is  proceeding  daily  and  persistently  at  the  rate  of  $10  per 
diem,  and  expenses  for  each  of  the  three  members  of  the  board,  or  was  in 
January  last,  when  I  examined  two  members  of  the  board.  One  member 
said  he  gave  nearly  every  day  to  the  work  and  yet  maintained  his  general 
practice.  He  thought  "one  hour  would  do  it  for  a  day".  The  requirement 
of  the  law  is  that  a  day  is  a  day  actually  engaged  in  the  performance  of  the 
duties  of  the  board.  It  might  take  a  week,  he  said,  to  decide  on  one 
case.  No  one  has  ever  ascertained  how  long  it  will  take  the  board  to 
examine  the  6,000  feeble-minded  persons  now  in  custody  in  this  state. 

The  members  of  the  board  travel  separately  usually;  but  the  intent 
of  the  law  is  that  the  board  shall  consider  each  case.  It  does  not  appear 
that  the  board  ever  procured  the  judicial  appointment  of  counsel  as 
a  preliminary  to  examination,  as  the  law  seems  to  require  in  each  case. 


75 

The  board  has  no  staff.  A  member  of  the  board  said  there  is  no  pre- 
pared schedule  for  visitation.  Each  member  seems  to  visit  at  random. 
Sometimes  he  asks  the  institution  superintendent  if  another  member  of 
the  board  has  already  examined,  and  might  not  know  the  answer  until  he 
had  traveled  to  the  institution. 

The  chairman  of  the  board  testified  that  200  cases  had  been  examined 
and  all  had  been  registered  for  the  operation  of  sterilization.  That  all 
who  are  examined  should  be  selected  is  amazing  in  view  of  the  limitations 
of  the  statute  as  to  those  upon  whom  the  board  is  permitted  to  operate. 

There   have   been   operations   under  a   similar   law   in   some   of   the  Expert  Opin- 
other  states,  notably  Indiana,  where  some  record  appears  to  have  been  sterilization. 
made  of  the  effect  of  the  operation  on  the  mental  and  physical  condition 
of  the  patient,  but  the  chairman  of  the  board  was  not  prepared  to  say 
that  any  safe  conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  these  records.    The  New 
York   board  has  not   examined  any  case  in  another   state  where  the 
operation  has  been  performed.    J)r.  Fernald,  the  distinguished  head  of 

the  Waverly  Institution  for  the  Feeble-Minded,  in  Massachusetts,  was  .  , . ,: 

instrumental  in  recently  defeating  proposed  legislation  to  authorize  this 
operation  in  that  state. 

Dr.  Stephen  Smith,  the  veteran  member  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities,  has  pointed  out  in  a  recent  publication :  "As  idiocy  and  feeble- 
mindedness have  not  been  standardized,  by  what  rule  is  the  public  officer 
appointed  to  sterilize  the  sexes  to  determine  with  absolute  certainty  that 
the  subjects  of  this  sterilization  would  beget  idiots.  *  *  *  The  pro- 
cedure is  naturally  shocking  to  moral  sense."  He  testified  that  he  had 
had  opportunity  to  inquire  particularly  about  the  Indiana  operations 
and  the  report  as  to  the  results,  and  said  that  "it  is  considered  unreliable. 
Every  man  I  know  in  the  West  considers  it  unreliable." 

Dr.  Smith  further  testified  that,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  inadvisable  for 
many  reasons  for  this  commission  to  go  on  examining  cases  at  a  per 
diem  expense  to  the  state,  "piling  up  hundreds  of  cases  pending  decision 
in  a  test  case  in  which  there  is  no  decision."  Gen.  Rosendale,  the  vice- 
president  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  testified  that  he  thought  that 
the  law  did  not  have  the  support  of  the  State  Board  or  of  its  committee 
on  the  feeble-minded,  and  that  he  was  amazed  at  the  conditions  revealed, 
and  that  the  board  ought  not  to  go  on. 

Dr.  Cobb,  of  the  Syracuse  State  Institution  for  the  Feeble-Minded, 
and  Dr.  Bernstein,  of  the  Rome  Custodial  Asylum,  testified  along  similar 


76 

lines — that  it  is  legislation  in  advance  of  enlightened  public  opinion,  if 
not  contrary  to  it;  that  the  result  of  turning  loose  upon  the  community 
the  patients  who  had  been  subjected  to  the  operation  would  probably 
spread  disease  and  result  in  a  larger  number  of  defectives  than  could 
possibly  be  safely  restored  to  society  as  a  result  of  the  operation. 

A  bill  was  introduced  in  1913,  and  again  in  1915,  to  repeal  this  law. 
It  was  apparently  not  pressed  for  passage. 

Irrespective  of  the  moral  and  sociological  phases  of  the  question,  it 
is  clear  to  me  that  it  is  only  a  waste  of  public>  funds  to  continue  this 
board  under  existing  conditions,  and  I  recommend  the  repeal  of  the 
law  creating  it.  If  hereafter  it  is  found  desirable  to  give  legislative 
sanction  to  this  operation,  it  can  safely  be  remitted  to  the  several  institu- 
tion authorities,  each  of  which  possesses  or  may  readily  acquire  the 
necessary  expert  staff. 

State  Board  and  Private  Institutions  for  Children  in  New  York  City. 

A  statement  of  The  real  question  submitted  to  me  by  the  Governor  for  inquiry  with 
Thoe&UAnion  respect  to  the  private  institutions  for  children  in  New  York  City  is  out- 
lined in  the  Governor's  letter  of  November  18,  1915,  in  transmitting  my 
commission.  The  substance  of  this  letter  is  that  the  representatives  of 
the  City  claim  that  the  1914  and  1915  inspection  reports  of  the  State 
Board  of  Charities  as  to  certain  institutions  are  widely  at  variance  with 
the  findings  of  the  City's  inspectors,  and  "that  certain  of  these  institutions 
which  have  received  the  certificate  of  approval  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  have  been  found  to  be  actually  in  an  unfit  condition  to  provide 
proper  care  for  the  children  heretofore  sent  to  them",  and  I  am  asked 
to  make  careful  inquiries  as  to  these  matters.  In  substance,  the  case 
amounts  to  a  charge  by  the  City  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  State 
Board  in  issuing  certificates  as  to  certain  private  institutions  for  children 
during  1914  and  1915  and  prior  thereto. 

It  will  be  perceived,  therefore,  that  I  am  not  asked  to  investigate  the 
institutions  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  present  condition.  This 
could  have  been  done  by  a  fresh  inspection  of  my  own,  with  such  expert 
assistance  as  I  could  have  commanded.  When  it  was  over,  I  trust  I 
should  have  known  the  real  conditions,  in  most  of  the  institutions  at  least, 
but  I  would  have  had  little  knowledge  as  to  the  relative  responsibility  for 
these  conditions,  good  or  bad,  as  between  the  State  Board  of  Charities, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  of  the  City 


77 

of  New  York  on  the  other.  If  I  had  found  the  conditions  were  good,  the 
question  would  have  arisen,  is  it  due  to  the  State  Board  or  due  to  the 
City,  or  to  either,  or  to  both,  and  in  what  proportion.  In  the  last  analysis, 
what  the  Governor  desires  to  know,  as  I  understand  it,  is,  how  has  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  discharged  its  duty,  under  the  constitution  and 
the  laws,  toward  the  child-caring  institutions  in  New  York  City?  And, 
more  particularly,  was  the  City  justified  in  making  its  charges  against  the 
State  Board,  based  on  the  conditions  in  these  institutions  in  1914  and 
1915? 

It  seems  clear  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  intelligent  appreciation  Obligations 
of  how  the  State  Board  of  Charities  has  discharged  its  duties  under  Board!16 
the  constitution  and  the  laws  toward  the  private  child-caring  institu- 
tions in  New  York  City  without  a  preliminary  examination  of  what, 
in  view  of  the  law  and  of  the  procedure  thereunder,  might  reasonably 
have  been  expected  of  the  State  Board.  While  it  is  true  that  the 
City  administration  and  its  Department  of  Public  Charities  are  not  on 
trial  in  this  inquiry,  nevertheless  it  is  apparent  that  a  comprehensive 
consideration  must  include  as  well  the  ascertainment  of  what  obligations, 
if  any,  are  imposed  by  law  upon  the  City,  and  how,  in  general,  they 
have  been  discharged. 

Earlier  in  this  report  I  have  set  forth  in  detail  the  provisions  of  the  TheConstitu- 
constitution  that  are  applicable.    In  substance,  the  State  Board  of  Chari-  tionandthe 

.....  ..  ,  .         .        .  /A  -ITTTT  ii\  •          Constitution  o 

ties  shall  visit  and  inspect  these  institutions  (Art.  VIII,  sec.  11)  ;  exist-  1894. 
ing  laws  providing  for  their  supervision  shall  remain  in  force  (Sec.  13)  ; 
payments  by  the  City  for  care,  support  and  maintenance  are  not  re- 
quired but  are  authorized,  and  "no  such  payments  shall  be  made  for 
any  inmate  of  such  institutions  who  is  not  received  and  retained  therein 
pursuant  to  rules  established  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities",  such 
rules  to  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  legislature  (Sec.  14). 

Recourse  to  the  constitutional  convention  debates  of  1894  discloses 
that,  although  charges  had  then  been  made  against  the  institutions,  a 
careful  investigation  had  disclosed  few  defects,  but  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  convention  to  arm  the  State  Board  with  a  power  it 
had  never  before  had  to  correct  such  abuses  as  there  were  and  to  "check 
all  abuses  that  might  arise  in  the  future" ;  a  power  that  might  prevent 
these  private  institutions  from  enjoying  any  share  in  the  public  funds 
"should  any  abuses  manifest  themselves".  It  appears  also  that  a  great 
abuse  with  which  the  convention  was  then  concerned  was  that  many 


78 

children  were  found  in  institutions  without  commitment,  placed  there 
by  parents  who  were  well  able  to  support  them.  This  called  for  a 
policy  which  Mr.  Choate,  the  president  of  the  convention,  described 
as  saving  a  great  commonwealth  from  having  its  children  pauperized, 
a  policy  which  does  not  rest  upon  any  religious  or  sectarian  ground. 
He  said  there  should  be  a  power  in  the  state  that  had  never  been 
exercised  before,  to  go  through  these  institutions  at  any  time  and  refuse 
aid  to  any  child  whose  parents  were  able  to  support  it.  This  power 
was  to  be  that  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  under  its  duty  to  visit 
and  inspect  and  to  make  rules.  Mr.  Choate  said :  "I  have  consulted  the 
Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  whether  in  his  judgment  it 
was  practicable,  and  he  says  it  is  if  this  is  properly  applied,  and  no 
child  can  get  into  such  institution  without  their  consent,  and  cannot  stay 
there  a  day  longer  than  they  say  he  ought  to  be  kept." 

But  this  was  not  the  only  abuse,  or  possible  abuse,  to  which  this 
power  was  to  be  directed.  Mr.  Lauterbach,  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee on  charities,  said  in  debate:  "I  believe  every  one  will  agree 
with  me  that  there  should  be  some  body,  some  board,  whose  duty  it 
will  be  to  see  to  it  that  all  these  persons  will  receive  intelligent  care 
and  protection."  He  further  said  that  the  provision  as  to  making  rules 
would  give  "absolute  domination"  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  in  People  v.  Comptroller,  152  N.  Y.  399,  said, 
after  referring  to  the  fact  that  the  constitutional  convention  had  invested 
the  new  board  with  the  power  of  visitation  and  inspection:  "But  more 
farreaching  is  the  power  conferred  upon  the  State  Board  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  reception  and  retention  of  inmates."  The 
State  Board  itself  set  forth  in  its  annual  report  for  1896,  shortly  after  the 
constitution  was  adopted :  "The  constitution  and  laws  show  that  the 
supervision  delegated  to  the  State  Board  was  intended  to  be  of  the 
most  varied  and  searching  kind,  designed  to  permeate  and  scrutinize 
every  avenue  and  branch  of  the  charitable  work  of  all  the  institutions." 
The  State  Board  in  its  report  for  1908  said:  "The  immediate  responsi- 
bility for  the  supervision  of  the  training  of  the  many  wards  of  the 
State  is  imposed  on  the  State  Board  by  statute,  and  consequently  these 
institutions  are  not  visited  by  the  Department  of  Education."  A  mem- 
ber of  the  State  Board  testified  at  the  hearings  that  the  "Board  appreciates 
that  the  state  has  put  on  our  shoulders  the  care  of  its  wards." 


79 

It  would  seem  clear  from  the  debates  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  DutytoAscer- 
the  constitutional  convention  that  the  State  Board  itself  should  ascer-  inmates  are 

r      i  «_       •  r      1         •         •         •  11-1  Proper  Public 

tain  whether  the  inmates  ot  the  institutions  are  proper  public  charges.  Charges. 
This  was  stated  specifically,  as  I  have  pointed  out.  The  State  Board 
itself  took  this  view  of  the  matter.  It  said  in  its  report  for  1900: 
"Systematic  examination  of  children's  records  in  order  to  ascertain 
whether  such  children  are  proper  public  charges  is  a  duty  unquestionably 
imposed  upon  the  State  Board  by  the  State  Charities  Law."  And  the 
President  of  the  board  confirmed  this  in  his  testimony  before  me.  Yet 
it  appears  that  in  1895,  the  State  Board  adopted  a  rule  imposing  upon 
local  Poor  Law  officers  (in  New  York  City  the  Department  of  Public 
Charities)  the  duty  of  accepting  applicants  for  admission  to  the  institu- 
tions as  proper  public  charges,  and  of  re-examining  thereafter  for  the 
purpose  of  re-acceptance.  Finding  this  rule  was  not  being  observed, 
the  State  Board  in  1895  and  1896  effected  an  arrangement  with  the  City 
of  New  York  by  which  the  latter,  through  its  Board  of  Estimate  and 
Apportionment,  provided  for  inspectors  to  enable  the  Department  of 
Public  Charities  to  perform  this  duty,  and  this  department  in  New  York 
City,  and  the  local  Poor  Law  officers  throughout  the  state,  have  been 
doing  it  ever  since.  In  justice  to  the  State  Board,  it  should  be  said  that 
when  this  duty  was  imposed  upon  it  by  the  constitution,  it  had  no 
inspectors  for  this  or  any  other  purpose,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  it 
made  rules  and  sought  an  arrangement  by  which  this  duty  was  to  be 
discharged  by  the  localities.  For  this  course  it  has  support  also  in  an 
observation  by  the  court  In  re  New  York  Juvenile  Asylum,  172  N.  Y.  50. 
It  is  nevertheless  true  that  the  correction  of  the  abuse  which  the  conven- 
tion relied  upon  the  State  Board  to  attend  to  was  by  it  immediately 
relegated  to  others  without  the  obligation  to  account  to  the  State  Board 
as  to  the  manner  of  performance. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  the  legislature  imposed  state  Board 
upon  the  State  Board  the  duty  of  establishing  rules  for  the  reception  and 
retention  of  inmates  in  the  private  charitable  institutions,  and  annually 
visiting  and  inspecting  the  same  to  see  whether  its  rules  and  regulations 
were  fully  complied  with  (S.  C.  L.)-  The  board  adopted  provisional 
rules  early  in  1895.  These  rules  were  subsequently  altered,  particularly 
in  1910,  but  the  legislature  has  never  changed  them,  and,  as  they  now 
are,  so  they  have  been  in  substance  for  nearly  twenty  years. 


80 

The  legislature  did  not  require  that  the  State  Board  issue  any  cer- 
tificate as  to  compliance  with  its  rules  and  never  has  made  such  require- 
ment. In  view,  however,  of  the  constitutional  inhibition  against  any  pay- 
ment to  institutions  not  observing  the  rules  of  the  State  Board,  it  was 
evident  that  the  board  must  adopt  some  practice  that  would  enable  the 
disbursing  officer — the  comptroller,  in  New  York  City — to  make  these 
payments.  At  first,  although  as  I  have  said  the  State  Board  had  no 
inspectors,  it  adopted  the  rule  that  its  secretary  should  approve  the  bills 
of  the  institutions  by  endorsing  thereon,  that  the  rules  of  the  board  had 
been  complied  with  by  the  institution.  Upon  the  advice  of  the  attorney- 
general,  this  plan  was  abandoned  and  the  rule  was  amended  so  as  to 
eliminate  these  endorsements  entirely,  the  attorney-general  going  so  far 
as  to  advise  that  the  locality  should  ascertain  for  itself  if  the  State  Board's 
rules  were  being  complied  with.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  comp- 
troller of  New  York  City,  and  other  disbursing  officers,  were  importunate 
for  some  evidence  proceeding  from  the  board  of  compliance  with  the 
board's  rules.  For  a  time  the  board,  recognizing  that  it  was  without  an 
inspectorial  force  that  would  justify  it  in  issuing  its  own  certificate, 
sought  to  satisfy  them  with  the  issuance  of  a  letter  to  the  effect  that  the 
institutions  had  reported  to  the  board  as  required,  but  that  by  this  state- 
ment the  board  did  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  intending  to  certify 
that  its  rules  were  receiving  compliance.  In  October,  1896,  the  board 
formally  resolved  that  in  "the  absence  of  special  inspection"  it  could 
not  certify  more  than  that  the  institutions  had  filed  their  reports.  This 
did  not  suffice,  however.  The  board  then  agreed  that  the  institutions 
should  furnish  a  certificate  of  compliance  with  all  the  rules  of  the  board, 
that  upon  filing  this  certificate  with  the  board,  the  board  would  issue  a 
letter  certifying  that  such  certificate  had  been  filed  and  that  such  evidence 
was  satisfactory  to  the  board,  adding  that  the  letter  was  intended  to 
facilitate  the  institutions  and  the  board  reserved  the  right  to  refuse  to 
issue  such  letter  if  it  should  deem  it  best  to  do  so.  This,  however,  was 
not  the  final  arrangement,  for,  as  appears  in  the  annual  report  of  the 
board  for  1896:  "The  Comptroller  insists  in  every  instance  that  the  cer- 
tificate of  this  board  that  the  institution  has  complied  with  the  rules 
established  by  the  board  for  the  reception  and  retention  of  inmates,  and 
also  that  the  acceptance  of  the  Commissioner  of  Charities  of  the  persons 
for  whom  maintenance  payments  are  desired,  shall  accompany  the  bill." 
The  President  of  the  State  Board  confirmed  this  in  his  testimony  before 


81 

me,  saying:  "The  Comptroller  requested  a  certificate  of  our  board  that 
the  institution  had  complied  with  the  rules".  The  President  wrote  that 
"certificates  of  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  board  are  furnished 
monthly  to"  (not  fry)  "the  institutions  and  must  be  filed  with  the  local 
disbursing  officer  before  payment  of  the  claims  for  maintenance."  The 
certificate  of  compliance  now  in  use,  called  the  "green  certificate",  was 
then  issued  and  has  been  issued  ever  since,  under  the  board's  Rule  3, 
which  has  the  effect  of  a  statute ;  and  the  comptroller  has  been  accepting 
it  and  relying  upon  it  as  his  authority  for  payment  of  the  bills  ever  since ;. 
and  the  .Department  of  Public  Charities  has  ever  since  regarded  it  as  a 
certificate  by  the  State  Board  itself  of  compliance  by  the  institution  with 
the  board's  rules.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  that,  but  it  would  seem 
that  the  State  Board  itself  has  called  it  that.  The  form  of  the  certificate 
is  as  follows : 

STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
STATE  BOARD  OF  CHARITIES. 

THE  CAPITOL,  ALBANY ,  191 . . . 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  hereby  certifies  that 


located 

at 

has  filed  with  this  Board  in  due  form  certificates  that  the  said  Institution 
has  complied  with  the  Rules  of  the  Board  for  the  Reception  and  Retention 
of  Inmates,  adopted  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and 

the  State  Charities  Law,  for  the 

and  that   such   evidence   is   satisfactory  ta 

this  Board. 

By  order  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 


Secretary. 

The  rules  of  the  State  Board  for  many  years  and  until  after  the 
hearings  before  me  closed,  described  it  as  "the  certificate  of  compliance 
with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  this  board  duly  signed  by  its  secretary". 

In  any  event,  the  certificate  operates  as  an  estoppel  on  the  State 
Board,  with  the  result  that  it  cannot  be  heard  to  say,  in  a  case  where-, 


82 

the  certificate  has  issued,  that  its  rules  have  not  been  complied  with. 
The  Secretary  of  the  board  called  it  a  certificate  by  the  board  on  infor- 
mation and  belief. 

While,  as  I  have  said,  there  is  no  express  statutory  obligation  on  the 
State  Board  to  issue  a  certificate  that  its  rules  have  been  complied  with, 
there  is  the  plain  implication  in  its  own  rule,  having  the  force  of  a 
statute,  that  it  will  issue  such  certificate,  and  there  is  what  is  equivalent 
to  an  express  statutory  obligation  on  the  State  Board  to  issue  its  own 
certificate  that  the  institution  has  failed  to  comply  with  the  rules  and 
regulations  established  by  the  board  under  the  constitution  in  case  that 
situation  arises  (Charter  City  of  New  York,  Sec.  664). 

So  the  substance  of  it  is  that  for  twenty  years  the  State  Board,  in 
issuing  the  certificates  that  it  has  issued,  has  every  month  been  taking 
the  word  of  institution  officers  that  they  have  complied  with  the  rules 
of  the  State  Board  and  thus  holding  out  to  the  world  that  the  institu- 
tions are  up  to  the  standard  required  by  the  law  and  by  the  rules.  When- 
ever it  has  issued  the  certificate,  it  has  accepted  usually  without  challenge 
the  statements  as  to  compliance  which,  although  made  in  good  faith,  were 
self  serving  and  by  persons  with  whom  the  board,  it  seems  to  me,  should 
have  dealt  in  matters  of  inspection  at  arm's  length.  An  inspection  of 
that  sort  need  not  be  and  should  not  be  other  than  friendly,  helpful  and 
constructive. 

I  have  gone  into  considerable  detail  as  to  the  form  and  meaning  of 
the  certificate  of  compliance,  because  counsel  for  the  State  Board  regarded 
it  as  of  great  importance  and  because  I  think  it  is  due  to  the  State  Board 
to  make  clear  that  it  was  under  no  express  statutory  obligation  to  give 
it,  beyond  that  arising  out  of  its  own  Rule  3,  and  that  it  is  not  strictly 
in  terms  just  what  the  board  in  its  reports  and  in  its  letters,  and  some 
of  its  members  in  their  testimony,  have  said  it  was.  I  observe,  however, 
the  statement  by  counsel  for  the  State  Board  that,  whether  the  arrange- 
ment made  by  the  board  and  the  City  as  to  the  certificate  was  or  was 
not  beyond  the  power  of  the  State  Board  is  not  very  material;  that  it 
imposed  on  the  board  a  certain  duty,  namely,  to  refuse  to  say  that  it 
was  satisfied  with  the  evidence  of  compliance  when  it  had  information 
indicating  the  contrary.  Any  other  course  would  amount  to  falsification. 

Given  the  power  and  duty  to  make  the  rules,  to  visit  and  inspect 
and  supervise  in  order  to  see  if  there  was  compliance  with  the  rules, 
there  would  seem  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  same  body  should  construe 


83 

these  rules — indeed,  inspection  to  see  that  there  is  compliance  with  rules 
necessarily  involves  construction  of  the  rules  and  determination  of  their 
application.  Judge  Scott,  in  1895,  then  corporation  counsel,  advised 
the  comptroller  that  as  the  State  Board  had  established  the  rules,  it  was 
therefore  necessarily  the  most  competent  judge  as  to  whether  its  rules 
had  been  obeyed.  I  know  of  no  dissent  from  this  view. 

The  State  Board  having  made  the  rules  and  having  inspected  and  issuance  of 
having  ascertained  whether  the  rules  as  they  should  be  interpreted  had 
been  obeyed,  it  would  follow  naturally  that  the  State  Board  should  per- 
fect the  system  designed  by  the  constitution  and  the  laws  to  safeguard 
municipal  contributions  to  private  charities  by  issuing  its  certificate 
to  the  disbursing  officers  affirmatively  declaring,  on  its  own  responsibility, 
that  its  rules  had  been  complied  with.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
State  Board  would  have  done  this  if  it  had  had  such  inspectorial  force 
as  would  have  enabled  it  to  do  so.  In  my  judgment  there  is  equally 
no  doubt  that  all  uncertainty  and  hesitation  as  to  this  should  be  removed 
and  that  the  legislature  should  affirmatively  direct  the  State  Board  to 
issue  such  certificate  when  warranted,  just  as  it  is  now  affirmatively 
directed  to  issue  an  adverse  certificate  when  warranted,  this  said  cer- 
tificate of  compliance  to  be  a  pre-requisite  to  payments  to  the  institu- 
tions, and  that  the  State  Board  should  be  furnished  with  such  number 
of  competent  inspectors  as  will  enable  it  to  issue  its  certificate  in  good 
faith  and  with  confidence  that  it  is  a  certification  of  the  truth  about  the 
institutions  as  it  sees  it. 

After  making  and  interpreting  the  rules  and  inspecting  to  see  if  there  state  Board's 
is  compliance  and  certifying  as  to  compliance  or  non-compliance,  the  fo°celtsRt3e». 
only  remaining  element  for  consideration  is  enforcement.  The  State 
Board  now  takes  the  position  that  it  is  not  charged  with  the  duty  of 
management.  This  is  of  course  true,  although  it  should  be  said  that 
"the  power  to  make  rules  for  the  government  of  a  corporation  implies 
the  right  to  participate  in  its  management  in  some  degree  at  least". 
(People  v.  N.  Y.  S.  P.  C.  C.,  161  N.  Y.  233,  where  the  court  was  con- 
sidering private  institutions.)  The  duty  of  management  rests  primarily 
on  the  institution  boards  and  officers.  The  State  Board  goes  further. 
At  one  place  in  the  briefs  submitted  the  claim  is  that  it  has  only 
inquisitorial  powers,  not  even  supervisory  powers;  in  another,  that  its 
powers  are  merely  supervisory  and  not  corrective  and  that  it  cannot 
enforce  its  advice.  But  the  attorney-general  has  advised  that  these 


84 


Obligations 
upon  the  City. 


City  Relies 
upon  State 
Board's  In- 
spection. 


private  institutions  are  "subject  to  the  supervision  and  inspection  of 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  for  the  enforcement  and  promulgation 
of  such  rules".  And  again,  he  has  advised  that  the  exercise  of  the 
board's  functions  would  "be  of  little  or  no  value  without  vesting  in  the 
board  some  means  to  exercise  its  influence  and  to  enforce  on  the  man- 
agement of  these  institutions  such  method  of  conducting  them  as,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  board,  seems  fitting  and  proper.  For  this  reason  evi- 
dently the  Legislature  enacted  Section  14,  which  gives  to  the  board 
a  means  of  enforcing  its  orders".  The  attorney-general  might  have 
included  a  reference  to  Section  15,  which  is  to  the  effect  that  the  institu- 
tions shall  follow  the  advice  of  the  board;  and  also  to  the  statutory 
provision  which  enables  the  board  to  prevent  all  commitments  to  institu- 
tions by  issuing  a  certificate  that  its  rules  have  not  been  complied  with ; 
and  also  to  the  rules  of  the  board,  which  have  the  effect  of  statutes,  and 
the  practice  thereunder,  sometimes  resorted  to,  to  withhold  the  certificate 
of  compliance.  The  board  itself,  in  1914,  reported  that  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  required  it  "to  see  that  such  rules  and  regulations  are 
observed". 

In  view  of  this  obligation  upon  the  State  Board  to  make  and  interpret 
rules,  to  inspect  and  supervise  to  see  if  its  rules  are  obeyed,  to  enforce  its 
rules  by  the  methods  indicated,  and  the  practice  as  to  issuing  certificates 
of  compliance,  the  question  now  arises  as  to  the  obligations  of  the  City 
itself  toward  the  children  in  these  institutions,  and  what  new  alignment,  if 
any,  between  City  and  State  there  should  be. 

When  the  agreement  was  reached  in  1896  between  the  State  Board  and 
the  City  of  New  York,  which  the  State  Board  has  called  "co-operation", 
and  the  City  took  over  the  duty  of  examination  and  acceptance  of  public 
charges,  the  State  Board  asserted  that  the  City  could  perform  this  duty 
without  interfering  with  the  board's  inspection  or  the  board's  powers  and 
duties  evidently  reserving  to  itself  what  in  1908  is  called  "the  immediate 
responsibility  for  the  supervision  of  the  children  and  of  the  many  wards 
of  the  State",  and  in  1914,  "the  paramount  duty  of  the  State  to  safe- 
guard the  interests  of  the  inmates  of  the  institutions".  Accordingly, 
beginning  in  1896,  the  board  organized  a  staff  of  inspectors. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  it  has  been  the  common  understanding 
since  1895,  of  the  State  Board  and  the  City  administration  alike, 
that  the  business  of  inspection  of  these  institutions,  irrespective  of 
its  extent,  was  and  should  be  carried  on  by  the  State  Board  and 


85 

not  by  the  City.  I  am  not  unmindful  of  a  few  inspections,  chiefly 
as  to  finances,  made  by  the  Department  of  Finance  in  1910  and 
1911,  and  I  purposely  exclude  the  investigation  made  by  the  Department 
of  Public  Charities,  which  was  followed  by  these  charges  against  the  State 
Board.  I  refer  to  the  usual  procedure  that  obtained.  There  is  also  no 
doubt  in  my  mind  that  it  was  generally  understood,  both  by  the  State 
Board  and  successive  City  administrations,  that,  as  between  the  two,  the 
prior  or  paramount  duty  of  supervision  and  inspection  lay  upon  the  State 
Board.  There  was  some  effort  made  at  the  inquiry  before  me  to  prove 
that  the  State  Board  had  always  put  upon  the  City  the  prior  or  paramount 
duty  of  inspection,  but  it  failed.  I  do  not  find  that  the  State  Board  has 
ever  hitherto  made  any  formal  declaration  to  this  effect.  The  nearest 
approach  to  this  was  in  a  written  report  made  in  1905  by  a  committee 
of  the  State  Board  on  infant  mortality  in  the  public  institution  on  Randall's 
Island,  in  which  the  committee  stated  that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  City 
Commissioner  of  Charities  "to  make  sure  by  careful  supervision  that  all 
such  infants  committed  by  him  to  private  institutions  receive  proper  care 
and  attention";  but  there  is  no  statement  here  as  to  priority,  and  the 
committee  went  on  to  say  that  "the  work  of  the  institution  can,  no  doubt, 
be  materially  improved  and  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  to  see  that  this  is  done  so  far  as  practicable".  Far  more  signifi- 
cant than  this  was  the  attitude  of  Secretary  Hebberd  in  1907,  when  he 
resigned  the  secretaryship  of  the  board  and  became  Commissioner  of 
Public  Charities  in  the  City  of  New  York.  He  made  no  inspections  of 
such  institutions  and  declared  before  me  that  he  had  no  staff  and  no 
authority,  and  that  the  rules  made  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor- 
tionment, referring  to  the  budget  rules,  gave  him  no  authority.  He  was 
in  error  as  to  this,  for  when  he  was  in  office  the  budget  rules  did  carry 
such  authority  to  his  department.  But  the  point  is  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  State  Board,  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  views  of  the  State  Board, 
assumed  officially  in  New  York  City  that  the  City  had  no  duty  to  inspect 
and  adopted  the  policy  of  all  the  incumbents  of  his  office,  before  and 
after,  until  the  present  administration,  of  relying  exclusively  upon  the 
reports  and  certificates  issued  by  the  State  Board  as  to  these  institutions. 

Although  the  City  administration  claims  to  have  ascertained  in  1911 
and  1912  that  conditions  in  some  of  the  institutions  were  deplorable  and 
although  the  comptroller  was  specifically  advised  in  1912,  by  means  of  an 
elaborate  communication  from  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board,  that  the 


86 

institutions  were  not  providing  the  requisite  educational  facilities,  the 
City  administration  continued  to  rely  upon  the  State  Board  to  see  that  its 
rules  providing  for  the  care  and  education  of  the  inmates  of  the  institu- 
tions were  obeyed.  The  comptroller  responded  to  this  letter  from  the 
secretary  by  advocating  and  securing  an  increase  in  the  per  capita  pay- 
ments to  the  institutions,  but,  as  I  have  said,  reliance  in  the  system  of 
exclusive  inspection  by  the  State  Board  was  continued.  It  should  be 
said  that  at  no  time  has  the  State  Board  notified  the  City  administration 
that  the  inspection  force  of  the  board  was  inadequate. 

City  does  not  Further,  successive  City  administrations  have  found  in  the  certificate 

tificate.  of  compliance  issued  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities  an  excuse  for  not 

giving  the  certificate  of  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Charities  that  the 
children  have  been  received  and  retained  by  the  institution  pursuant  to 
the  rules  of  the  State  Board,  as  required  by  law,  as  a  condition  of  pay- 
ment to  the  institution  (Charter,  Sec.  661).  While  I  understand  and 
sympathize  with  the  explanation,  I  cannot  see  any  justification  for  the 
failure  of  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  since  1897  to  have  given 
.  this  certificate.  Nor,  so  far  as  appears,  has  the  City  sought  to  amend 

the  law  in  this  respect. 
City's  Duty  to          The  imposition  upon  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  of  the  duty 

Issue  Certifi-  •-.««•  •  r  •      1  •*/<»•  A  •• 

catePresup-  to  give  this  certificate  presupposes  an  independent  series  01  City  inspec- 
spections.  tions,  unless  the  City  felt  it  could  rely  upon  a  comparison  of  the  State 
Board's  inspection  reports  with  the  rules  of  that  board.  The  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Charities  is  not,  however,  dependent  upon  an  implied 
right  of  inspection.  Most,  if  not  all,  of  the  time  since  1906,  there  has 
been  provision  in  the  City's  budget  rules  for  visitation  and  inspection  of 
these  institutions  by  representatives  either  of  the  Department  of  Finance 
or  the  Department  of  Charities,  or  both.  During  the  critical  period  of 
1914  and  1915,  however,  the  Department  of  Charities  had,  under  the 
budget  rules,  access  only  to  the  records  of  inmates.  The  City  gains  the 
power  to  establish  these  budget  rules  through  the  provisions  of  the 
Charter,  Sections  226  and  230,  all  appropriations  being  discretionary  and 
therefore  subject  to  conditions.  This  gives  the  Board  of  Estimate  and 
Apportionment  large  opportunities,  for  it  can  impose  any  condition.  The 
comptroller,  under  these  budget  rules,  may  withhold  payments  to  these 
institutions  whenever  he  deems  it  in  the  public  interest  to  do  so,  and  upon 
confirmation  of  this  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  all 
payments  to  any  such  institutions  shall  end.  The  Commissioner  of  Public 


87 

Charities  also  selects  from  the  budget  lists  the  institutions  to  which  he 
will  commit  and  thus  has  a  distinct  power  over  the  institutions,  but  in 
exercising  this  power  he  is  subject  to  the  veto  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  if  it  chooses  to  certify  that  a  given  institution  has  not  complied 
with  its  rules  ;  and  he  may  not  commit  to  a  given  institution  outside  of 
New  York  City  unless  the  State  Board  has  certified  that  it  is  free  from 
fire  and  other  danger  (Sec.  664).  The  mayor  in  person  or  by  representa- 
tive may  attend  meetings  of  the  boards  of  these  institutions,  but  this  is 
obviously  largely  impracticable  as  a  means  of  control. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  City  should  inspect  these  institutions  from  city  Should 
time  to  time  as  to  it  may  seem  desirable,  and  should  be  permitted  to 


retain  all  the  powers  and  privileges  that  it  now  possesses  in  respect  of  §tate~ioard 

inspection   and   commitment,   and   to   impose   all    reasonable   conditions 

upon  its  voluntary  grants  of  aid  to  these  private  institutions,  and  I  know 

of  no  organized  movement,  sectarian  or  otherwise,  to  interfere  with  these 

rights.    But  in  view  of  the  powers  and  duties  imposed  by  the  constitution 

and  the  laws  upon  the  State  Board  of  Charities  in  respect  of  these  mat- 

ters, and  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that  these  powers  and  duties,  in  so 

far  as  they  are  required  under  the  constitution,  must  remain,  I  am  opposed 

to   any   statutory   requirement,   either   express    or   implied,   that   would 

compel  the  City,  in  any  of  its  departments,  to  visit  and  inspect  these 

institutions,  always  excepting  of  course  the  functions  relating  to  health 

and  fire  prevention  and  protection,  which  should  be  discharged  by  the 

City  Departments  of  Health  and  Fire,  respectively.     I  shall  therefore 

recommend  the  repeal  of  this  provision  in  Section  661  of  the  charter 

which  imposes  upon  the  Commissioner  of  Charities  the  duty  of  issuing, 

as  a  prerequisite  of  payment,  his  certificate  that  the  institutions  have  com- 

plied with  the  rules  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  carrying  with  it,  as 

it  does,  and  of  necessity,  the  compulsory  duty  of  some  degree  of  inspec- 

tion.   Approval  of  the  recommendation  that  I  have  already  made  that  the 

State  Board  shall  give  such  certificate  and  be  given  the  means  with  which 

to  make  it,  will  furnish  the  comptroller  with  such  authority  as  he  should 

require,  under  the  constitution,   for  payments  to  the  institutions.     The 

^control  of  the  City  over  these  institutions  will  not  be  lost  by  relieving  it 

•of  the  duty  of  issuing  the  certificate  and  depriving  it  of  the  consequential 

power  of  withholding  it,  a  duty  that  it  has  never  discharged  and  a  power 

that  it  has  never  exercised,  for  there  are  ample  powers  left  to  the  City  in 

-what  I  have  already  enumerated. 


88 

I  am  moved  to  the  conclusion  that  the  City  should  be  free  of  the  com- 
pulsory duty  to  inspect  these  institutions  for  several  reasons : 

(a)  The  State  Board  must  continue  to  inspect  and  supervise  and  make 
rules  for  these  institutions  because  the  constitution  requires  it.     Wherever 
it  can  be  avoided,  I  am  opposed  to  multiplied  compulsory  official  inspec- 
tion, with  all  its  annoying  and  conflicting  advice,  based  on  conflicting 
standards,  and  particularly  in  this  case,  where  there  would  be  inevitable 
disputes  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  State  Board  rules.     Support  for 
this  may  be  found  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  Matter  of 
Juvenile  Asylum,  172  N.  Y.  50,  where,  referring  to  the  constitution,  the 
court  said : 

"Its  manifest  purpose  is  to  make  all  appropriations  of  public 
moneys  by  the  local  political  divisions  or  municipalities  of  the  state 
to  institutions  under  private  control,  subject  to  the  supervision  and 
rules  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities." 

In  Mt.  Sinai  Hospital  vs.  Hyman,  92  App.  Div.  270,  the  court  said : 

"All  appropriations  must  be  subject  to  control  by  the  State 
Board  of  Charities,  and  such  is  the  constitutional  provision." 

(b)  One  adequate  official  inspection  should  and  will  safeguard  the 
welfare  of  the  children  in  the  institutions  and  the  expense  of  another 
should  be  avoided. 

(c)  The  City,  in  periodically  examining  and  re-examining  to  deter- 
mine the  circumstances  of  the  child  and  of  the  family,  to  see  if  the  child 
is  a  proper  public  charge,  is  already  performing  a  duty  which,  I  think, 
was  imposed  by  the  constitution  upon  the  State  Board. 

(d)  Uniformity  of  law  and  procedure  throughout  the  state  calls  for 
a  change,  because  I  do  not  find  that  elsewhere  in  the  state  the  burden  of 
certifying  compliance  with  the   State   Board's   rules  is   imposed  on  the 
locality.     Every  locality  is  entitled  to  rely  upon  the  proper  discharge  by 
the  State  Board  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  it  under  the  constitution. 
The  rule  that  a  special  act,  such  as  the  charter,  repeals  pro  tanto  pro- 
visions as  to  supervision  by  the  State  Board  contained  in  the  earlier  State 
Charities  Law,  as  urged  by  counsel,  has  no  application. 

(e)  The  doctrine  of  home  rule  has  no  legitimate  bearing,  because  the 
care  and  education  of  the  children  in  these  institutions,  while  remitted  to 


89 

the  localities  to  supply  the  funds,  is  a  matter  of  statewide  concern  in  the 
same  sense  as  is  the  care  of  the  children  in  the  public  schools  of  New  York 
City.  The  Court  of  Appeals  held,  in  Gunnison  v.  Board  of  Education, 
176  N.  Y.  11: 

"The  idea  of  counsel  that  conduct  and  management  of  the 
schools  is  a  city  function  is  an  obvious  mistake.  The  settled  policy 
of  the  state  from  an  early  date  was  to  divorce  the  business  of 
public  education  from  all  other  municipal  interests  or  business, 
and  to  take  charge  of  it  as  a  peculiar  and  separate  function 
through  agents  of  its  own  selection  and  immediately  subject  and 
responsible  to  its  own  control.  For  more  than  one-half  a  century 
the  courts  have  accepted  this  rule  and  acted  on  it." 

In  the  report  to  President  Roosevelt  of  the  National  Conference  on 
Care  of  Dependent  Children,  held  in  Washington  in  1909,  was  this  state- 
ment: 

"STATE  INSPECTION. 

"The  proper  training  of  destitute  children  being  essential  to 
the  well-being  of  the  State,  it  is  a  sound  public  policy  that  the 
State,  through  its  duly  authorized  representative,  should  inspect 
the  work  of  all  agencies  which  care  for  dependent  children,  whether 
by  institutional  or  by  home-finding  methods  and  whether  supported 
by  public  or  private  funds." 

In  what  I  have  already  said,  I  have  indicated  that  my  view  is  adverse 
to  the  suggestion  in  the  brief  of  counsel  for  the  State  Board  that  the  only 
kind  of  inspection  that  the  State  Board  can  give  is  what  counsel  calls  "a 
supervising  inspection",  and  "that  there  is  much  justice  in  the  claim  that 
the  state  should  pay  the  expenses  of  proper  inspections  made  by  the 
different  municipalities  of  the  private  charitable  institutions  it  (sic) 
employs."  With  the  difference  between  a  "supervising  inspection"  and 
a  "proper  inspection",  and  the  present  capacity  of  the  State  Board  for 
either,  I  shall  deal  later.  I  see  no  wisdom  or  propriety  in  the  state  paying 
the  bills  of  municipalities  for  inspections  that  the  constitution  requires  a 
state  department  to  make. 

At  the  close  of  the  hearings  before  me,  this  question  of  the  City's  State  Board 
certificate  and  inspecting  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  it  to  certify  might  Powe6"  C1 


90 

have  been  regarded  as  in  a  measure  academic,  because,  as  I  have  said,  the 
City  has  never  certified,  although  the  statute  has  required  it,  and  has  never 
inspected,  except  in  isolated  instances  by  the  Department  of  Finance, 
until  1914,  when  the  present  administration  made  inspections  here  and 
there  for  reasons  which  will  be  referred  to  later.  But  since  the  hearings 
closed,  two  significant  things  have  happened.  The  State  Board  has 
amended  its  rules  so  as  to  make  it  no  longer  necessary  for  the  comp- 
troller to  require  certificates  of  compliance,  signed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  State  Board,  before  the  payment  of  bills.  The  City  admin- 
istration has  decided  it  must  comply  with  the  provisions  in  Section 
661  of  the  charter,  requiring  a  certificate  from  the  Commissioner 
of  Public  Charities  and  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  is  creating 
standards  of  inspection  and  organizing  a  staff  of  inspectors  to  enable 
the  Commissioner  to  issue  the  certificate  as  required  by  the  comptroller. 
The  situation  is  such,  therefore,  that  prompt  legislative  action  alone 
will  relieve  the  City  of  New  York  and  the  other  localities  of  the  state 
from  an  unjust  and  an  unnecessary  burden  that  the  state  must  continue 
to  carry  in  any  event  short  of  constitutional  amendment. 

By  amendment  of  the  rules  in  the  spring  of  1916,  which  in  effect  is  a 
repeal  of  the  statute,  the  State  Board  has  taken  from  the  City  a  prop  on 
which,  without  authority  of  law,  it  has  been  relying  for  twenty  years.  It 
has  made  acute  the  City's  obligation  to  certify  and  inspect.  But,  in  order 
to  effect  this,  the  State  Board  has  voluntarily  surrendered  what  it  and  its 
members  have  frequently  declared  was  a  most  effective  means  of  compell- 
ing the  institutions  to  do  what  the  board  wanted  them  to  do.  The  record 
before  me  is  full  of  testimony  as  to  the  effect  of  withholding  the  certi- 
ficate. The  board  in  its  report  for  1911  said: 

"Such  action,  although  seldom  taken,  has  invariably  resulted 
in  the  improvement  desired." 

Secretary  Hebberd  said  it  gave  the  board  "very  close  supervision", 
and  it  is  the  power  that  the  board  has  "to  enforce  its  advice". 

In  the  inquiry  before  me,  the  board  asserted  that  it  has  no  corrective 
power;  again,  that  such  corrective  power  as  it  has  is  difficult  to  employ; 
yet  it  now  surrenders  deliberately  the  most  effective  weapon  that  it  has. 
One  would  think  that  the  board  dislikes  power  for  fear  it  would  be  held 
responsible  for  its  use.  It  is  true  that  the  board  continues  to  issue  the 
certificate,  but,  as  the  board  has  relieved  the  institutions  from  the 


91 

need  of  obtaining  it  in  order  to  get  their  money  from  the  City,  the  cer- 
tificate may  be  framed  or  it  may  be  treated  as  a  scrap  of  paper.  I  see 
no  other  use  for  it. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  while  the  State  Board  has  amended  Rule 
3  in  the  manner  described,  it  has  not  amended  Rule  4,  which  provides 
that  the  institution  is  entitled  to  notice,  doubtless  from  the  State  Board, 
before  payment  can  be  refused  for  failure  to  comply  with  any  rule  or 
regulation  or  order  of  the  State  Board.  How  then,  in  the  absence  of 
such  notice,  may  the  City  stop  payment  by  withholding  its  own  certificate 
when  it  seems  clear  to  it,  after  inspection,  that  the  institution  has  failed 
to  comply  with  the  rules  of  the  board?  This  suggests,  if  it  does  not 
invite,  litigation.  This  question  will  not  arise  if  my  recommendation 
is  adopted  that  the  State  Board  certificate,  and  not  the  City's  certificate, 
should  be  the  basis  for  payment. 

Having  concluded  such  examination  of  the  law  and  the  procedure 
thereunder  as  I  have  considered  necessary  in  order  to  determine  the 
relative  responsibilities  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  City  of  New  York  with  respect  to  these  institutions,  both 
as  such  responsibilities  are  and  as  it  would  seem  they  should  be,  I  now 
turn  to  ?jn  examination  of  some  general  factors  that  affect  public  super- 
vision of  dependent  children,  whether  by  State  or  City  or  both. 

In  the  United   States,   there  are   110,000  children  in   1,200   private  Numbers  of 
institutions  for  the  care  of  dependent  children,  of  whom  37,094  are  in  children?* 
the  State  of  New  York  in  private  institutions  which  receive  public  aid, 
including  25,397  in   39   New   York   City   private   institutions   receiving 
public  aid.    Of  these  25,397,  there  are  3,691  in  Hebrew,  5,794  in  Protes- 
tant, and  15,912  in  Roman  Catholic  institutions.     There  are  approxi- 
mately 5,000  more  in  private   institutions   in  the   State  of   New  York 
not  receiving  public  aid. 

The  system  of  grants  of  public  aid  for  the  partial  maintenance  and  The  "New 
training  of  dependent  children  in  private  institutions,  which  has  come 
to  be  known  as  the  "New  York  system",  was  regarded  as  intrenched 
by  the  leaders  of  the  constitutional  convention  of  1894.  It  certainly 
is  not  less  so  to-day.  It  is  viewed  with  friendly  and  unfriendly  eyes. 
The  friendly  would  have  it  remain  always;  the  unfriendly — at  least, 
the  thinking  unfriendly — find  no  practicable  way  to  be  rid  of  it.  Cer- 
tainly the  reports  of  the  State  Board  and  of  the  City  have  no  program 
that  contemplates  its  elimination.  Commissioner  Kingsbury  stated  in 


92 

x 

appreciative  of  the  fact  that  existing  conditions  make  such  a  system  for 
the  time  being  inevitable". 

There  are  marked  differences  of  opinion  among  those  conspicuously 
identified  with  what  are  known  as  the  private  religious  charities  as  to 
the  wisdom  of  public  grants  to  private  institutions.  Notable  among  these 
was  the  late  Thomas  M.  Mulry,  member  of  the  New  York  State  Board 
of  Charities,  unselfish  and  devoted  friend  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and 
other  charities  and  firm  adherent  of  the  "New  York  system".  On  the 
other  hand,  Mr.  David  F.  Tilley  of  Boston,  member  of  the  Massachusetts 
State  Board  of  Charity,  also  prominent  in  Roman  Catholic  charities, 
opposes  public  aid  on  the  ground  that  it  discourages  private  benevolence, 
asserts  that  private  institutions  without  public  aid  are  stronger  than  those 
with  public  aid,  that  it  is  difficult  to  withdraw  support  that  is  once 
extended,  and  that  outside  of  New  York  the  amount  of  public  aid  given 
to  private  Catholic  institutions  is  insignificant.  He  recognizes  special 
difficulties  in  the  New  York  situation. 

institutions  It  is  apparent  that  all  that  is  needed  to  end  public  aid  in  New  York 

indispensable.   ^.^  .g  ^  votQ  ^  the  Board  Qf  £stimate  anci  Apportionment.    It  is  equally 

apparent  that  such  action  would  close  many  of  the  institutions  and  throw 
back  upon  the  City  thousands  of  these  minor  wards.  This  would  call  for 
new  instruments  of  care.  Some  children  could  not  and  should  not  be 
cared  for  outside  of  good  institutions.  For  example,  the  especially  diffi- 
cult child,  often  bordering  upon  the  defective,  the  delinquent,  the  ungov- 
ernable and  the  diseased,  those  in  need  of  temporary  refuge  as  a  result 
of  sudden  and  transient  misfortune  in  the  family,  and  many  between 
the  ages  of  12  and  16  who  should  receive  the  industrial  and  vocational 
training  which  they  cannot  receive  in  the  best  private  boarding  or  free 
homes.  This  is  why  thinking  people  should  hesitate  before  urging  the 
withdrawal  of  public  aid  from  private  institutions  and  before  declaring 
that  "the  poorest  family  is  better  than  the  best  institution". 

Extent  of  In  saying  that  to  cancel  public  grants  would  close  many  private  institu- 

^ld'  tions,  I  would  not  be  understood  as  entertaining  the  view  that  these 
institutions  are  entirely  supported  by  public  grants.  There  may  be  some 
cases  where  the  narrow  means  of  the  friends  and  benefactors  of  the 
institution  have  brought  reliance  on  the  public  treasury  to  a  point  where 
the  full  cost  of  operation  is  met  by  the  City,  but  such  cases  are  rare. 
Moreover,  in  such  cases  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  institution 


93 

owns  and  maintains  the  plant  and  meets  the  carrying  charges,  free  of 
taxation,  to  be  sure,  and  enjoying  what  is  called  the  unearned  increment 
(when  it  exists),  and  that  in  some  of  the  institutions,  Roman  Catholic 
particularly,  the  service  of  many  of  the  women  is  given  in  a  spirit  of 
devotion  and  without  pecuniary  reward.  It  has  come  to  be  generally 
accepted  that  private  institutions  in  the  State  of  New  York  represent 
an  outlay  of  $100,000,000,  and  in  New  York  City  alone  of  $60,000,000. 

The  comptroller  furnishes  figures  showing  that  for  the  year  1913, 
the  City  of  New  York  made  to  Protestant  institutions  for  dependent 
children  payments  amounting  to  43  per  cent,  of  their  total  expenditure, 
including  expenditures  for  maintenance  of  plant  and  equipment  and  fixed 
charges ;  to  Jewish  institutions  57  per  cent. ;  and  to  Roman  Catholic 
institutions  71  per  cent.  These  payments  are  on  a  per  capita  basis  and 
therefore  uniform.  The  remainder  of  the  expense  is,  of  course,  con- 
tributed by  private  benefactors.  During  the  twenty  years  since  1896, 
about  82  per  cent,  of  the  institution  population  has  consisted  of  public 
charges. 

I  find,  however,  a  sentiment,  very  generally  held,  that  after  all  has  The  Family 
been  said  in  favor  of  the  good  institution  that  can  be  said,  normal  chil-  Theinstitu- 
dren  should  not  be  deprived  of  a  wholesome  family  life  except  for 
reasons  that  are  compelling.  This  is  the  view  expressed  to  me  by  repre- 
sentatives of  the  State  Board  and  the  City  alike,  by  persons  unaffiliated 
with  either,  by  persons  of  all  religious  faiths.  This  means  first  the 
preservation,  wherever  possible,  of  the  natural  home  of  the  child;  sec- 
ondly, the  transfer  of  a  normal  young  child  from  the  natural  home  to 
a  good  foster  home  instead  of  to  an  institution ;  and,  thirdly,  the  prompt 
placing-out  of  such  child  in  a  good  foster  home,  either  free  or  boarding, 
where  it  has  first  entered  an  institution. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities,  in  its  last  annual  report,  announced 
that  nearly  20  per  cent,  of  the  children  discharged  from  institutions 
during  the  year  ending  September  30,  1915,  have  spent  more  than  three 
years  in  the  institution,  and  nearly  10  per  cent,  over  five  years,  some  over 
ten  years,  and  that  the  institutions  should  be  "for  normal  children  only 
a  temporary  means  of  refuge".  Dr.  Stephen  Smith,  of  the  State  Board, 
states  that  the  fixed  policy  of  the  State  Board  "is  based  on  family  care 
as  its  ultimate  end  and  purpose" ;  and  Mr.  Choate,  in  the  course  of  the 
constitutional  convention  debates,  said  he  thought  the  State  Board  rules 
would  provide  that  a  child  should  not  be  kept  in  an  institution  "except 


94 

as  a  temporary  refuge  and  no  longer  than  possible  to  have  suitable  pro- 
vision outside,  where  it  may  take  its  place  in  society  and  be  an  attendant 
on  the  public  school".  But  the  rules  of  the  State  Board  do  not  contain 
such  provision.  While,  as  I  have  said,  the  State  Board  is  on  record 
as  favoring  placing-out,  it  is  not,  I  think,  unfair  to  say  that  my  atten- 
tion has  not  been  called  to  any  real  effort  it  has  ever  made  to  promote 
it.  Secretary  Hebberd  is,  however,  entitled  to  much  of  the  credit  for 
drafting,  promoting  and  procuring  the  passage  of  the  Child  Welfare 
Law  of  1915.  It  is  expected  that  the  operation  of  this  law  will  take 
perhaps  2,000  children  out  of  the  institutions  and  prevent  many  from 
entering  them.  The  Governor,  in  approving  the  measure,  said,  the 
proposal  is  to  substitute  the  home  of  the  mother  for  that  of  an  institu- 
tion. "The  welfare  of  the  child  is  the  primary  consideration". 

Probably  the  most  compact  statement  in  favor  of  preserving  family 
life  is  that  of  the  Washington  Conference  on  the  Care  of  Dependent 
Children  to  which  I  have  referred,  the  unanimous  report  of  a  com- 
mittee representing  the  three  leading  religious  faiths : 

"Home  life  is  the  highest  and  finest  product  of  civilization. 
*  *  *  Children  of  parents  of  worthy  character,  suffering  from 
temporary  misfortune,  and  children  of  reasonably  efficient  and 
deserving  mothers  who  are  without  the  support  of  the  normal 
breadwinner,  should,  as  a  rule,  be  kept  with  their  parents,  such 
aid  being  given  as  may  be  necessary  to  maintain  suitable  homes 
for  the  rearing  of  the  children.  This  aid  should  be  given  by  such 
methods  and  from  such  sources  as  may  be  determined  by  the  gen- 
eral relief  policy  of  each  community,  preferably  in  the  form  of 
private  charity,  rather  than  of  public  relief.  Except  in  unusual 
circumstances,  the  home  should  not  be  broken  up  for  reasons  of 
poverty,  but  only  for  considerations  of  inefficiency  or  immoral- 
ity/' *  *  * 

"As  to  the  children  who  for  sufficient  reasons  must  be  removed 
from  their  own  homes,  or  who  have  no  homes,  it  is  desirable  that, 
if  normal  in  mind  and  body  and  not  requiring  special  training, 
they  should  be  cared  for  in  families  whenever  practicable.  The 
carefully  selected  foster  home  is  for  the  normal  child  the  best 
substitute  for  the  natural  home."  *  *  * 

"It  is  recognized  that  for  many  children  foster  homes  without 
payment  for  board  are  not  practicable  immediately  after  the 


95 

children  become  dependent,  and  that  for  children  requiring  tem- 
porary care  only,  the  free  home  is  not  available.  For  the  tempo- 
rary, or  more  or  less  permanent,  care  of  such  children  different 
methods  are  in  use,  notably  the  plan  of  placing  them  in  families, 
paying  for  their  board,  and  the  plan  of  institutional  care.  Contact 
with  family  life  is  preferable  for  these  children,  as  well  as  for 
other  normal  children.  It  is  necessary,  however,  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  carefully  selected  boarding  homes  be  found  if  these  children 
are  to  be  cared  for  in  families.  The  extent  to  which  such  families 
can  be  found  should  be  ascertained  by  careful  inquiry  and  experi- 
ment in  each  locality.  Unless  and  until  such  homes  are  found,  the 
use  of  institutions  is  necessary." 

Outdoor  relief,  as  it  is  called,  that  is,  direct  aid  to  the  family  by  the  Outdoor 
Poor  officers  or  the  Department  of  Public  Charities,  was  abandoned  for 
various  reasons  by  Brooklyn  in  1870  and  New  York  City  in  1873.  It 
exists  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  state,  but  without  adequate  inspec- 
tion. Preservation  of  the  natural  family  home  by  the  resumption  of  out- 
door relief  in  New  York  City,  preferably  by  private  charity,  would  inevi- 
tably tend  to  reduce  the  number  of  dependent  children,  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  number  in  institutions.  Other  methods  of  prevention  of 
dependency,  and  consequently  the  preservation  of  the  home,  such  as  the 
fight  against  tuberculosis  and  blindness,  industrial  insurance,  child  labor 
reforms,  as  suggested  by  the  Washington  Conference,  would  tend  toward 
the  same  desirable  result.  The  President  of  the  State  Board  said  that 
the  fact  that  so  large  a  number  of  children  "should  be  maintained  in  insti- 
tutions emphasizes  the  need  of  preventive  measures  for  the  preservation 
of  the  homes  from  which  they  come  and  of  intelligent  efforts  to  place 
them  in  suitable  foster  homes". 

Opinion  favorable  to  placing-out  so  widely  held  is,  of  course,  Placing  Out. 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  it  will  be  practised  only  to  the 
extent  to  which  superior  homes  can  be  found  where  the  child  may  cer- 
tainly be  trained  in  the  same  religious  faith  as  that  of  the  parents,  and 
that  thereafter  there  shall  be  the  most  careful  supervision  of  the  homes, 
either  by  the  placing-out  agency  or  the  State  Board  of  Charities  or  both, 
and  by  the  City  where  it  feels  it  should.  I  do  not  fail  to  appreciate 
the  difficulty  of  placing-out  in  New  York  City,  due,  in  part,  to  the  large 
immigrant  population  and  the  compactness  of  housing  conditions.  I 


96 

would  insure  religious  training  according  to  the  faith  of  the  parents  by 
insistence  upon  some  form  of  approval  of  the  home  by  recognized  repre- 
sentatives of  the  several  religions,  as  each  case  arises,  such  as  the  approval 
of  priest,  rabbi,  or  minister. 

The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  has  a  placing-out  system  that 
is  famous  the  world  over.  All  public  aid  for  dependent  children  in  that 
state  is  expended  in  this  form.  None  goes  to  private  institutions.  As 
Secretary  Kelso  says,  the  process  involves  no  buildings  or  any  of  the 
physical  aspects  of  plant  and  maintenance.  If  all  the  dependent  children 
in  Massachusetts  were  cared  for  in  institutions,  it  would  require  22  plants 
and  equipment  equal  in  size  to  its  great  Hospital  School.  The  paid  force 
that  carries  on  this  work  in  Massachusetts  is  1  superintendent,  1  deputy, 
48  visitors  and  29  other  employees.  The  transfers  are  not  excessive.  The 
demand  in  good  homes  for  children  is  said  to  be  greater  than  the 
supply.  The  number  of  children  placed  in  one  home  does  not  exceed 
four  and  the  sexes  are  separated.  The  death  rate  compares  favorably 
with  the  community  rate. 

In  Indiana,  the  state  itself  places-out  dependent  children.  In  Ohio, 
placing-out  and  supervision  thereafter  are  carried  on  by  the  state  through 
a  division  of  child  welfare  in  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  Substantial 
progress  in  this  direction  has  also  been  made  in  Pennsylvania,  California 
and  Michigan.  Mr.  Tilley,  a  Catholic  member  of  the  Massachusetts 
board,  to  whom  I  have  referred,  said:  "Children  should  have  a  normal 
family  life  and  normal  children  should  be  placed  in  family  homes,  either 
at  board  or  free".  At  the  last  New  York  State  Conference,  a  committee, 
including  representatives  of  all  the  religious  faiths,  unanimously  reported 
to  the  effect  that  no  child  should  be  deprived  of  an  opportunity  for  family 
life  merely  because  he  is  mentally  slower  than  the  ordinary  child  or 
because  he  has  bad  habits,  and  such  child  should  be  placed-out  in  a  board- 
ing rather  than  a  free  home. 

There  were  under  the  general  supervision  of  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  on  September  30,  1915,  children  placed-out  in  free  homes  to 
the  number  of  10,155,  and  in  boarding  homes  4,890,  total  15,045.  It  was 
admitted  in  1914  that  there  were  approximately  1,500  placed-out  children 
who  were  not  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  Board.  I  find  no  evi- 
dence, however,  that  the  State  Board  has  done  or  is  doing  anything  toward 
making  really  effective  its  declared  policy,  which  "is  based  on  family  care 
as  its  ultimate  aim  and  purpose".  There  is  no  organized  effort  to  add  to 


97 

the  number  of  licensed  placing-out  agencies  or  to  press  the  institutions 
to  hasten  or  to  extend  placing-out;  nor  do  I  find  that  the  State  Board 
has  done  aught  to  improve  and  make  uniform  the  widely  differing  methods 
of  placing-out  which  are  employed  at  the  several  institutions. 

The  Department  of  Public  Charities  of  New  York  City  has  recently, 
and  for  the  first  time  in  its  history,  resolved  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
power  conferred  upon  it  in  the  charter  to  place-out  children.  A  new 
Bureau  of  Child-placing  is  to  be  formed.  Babies  are  already  placed-out 
by  the  asylums  in  large  numbers.  The  Department  is  to  attempt  to 
place-out,  instead  of  committing,  as  many  children  as  practicable  between 
the  ages  of  2  and  6.  The  City  is  to  pay  $3  per  week  for  board  and  cloth- 
ing wherever  necessary.  This  is  the  same  sum  as  is  paid  weekly  per 
capita  to  private  institutions  of  the  cottage  type.  The  plan  is  to  make  a 
public  appeal  for  private  subscriptions  for  the  remainder  needed  to  defray 
the  expenses  for  a  superintendent,  physicians,  dentists  and  field  agents, 
including  nurses,  etc.  The  expectation  is  that  suitable  homes  for  about 
1,000  children  will  be  found  in  the  first  year.  In  making  this  appeal 
for  private  subscriptions,  the  Department  obviously  appreciates  that  one 
result  of  the  inquiry  conducted  before  me  has  been  to  arouse  public 
interest  as  never  before  in  the  welfare  of  dependent  children. 

There  are  no  figures  available  from  which  one  may  determine  how 
much  more  it  would  cost  to  place-out  all  the  dependent  children  that 
should  be  placed-out  than  is  now  paid  for  institutional  care.  If  the 
experience  in  other  states  is  a  guide,  the  plan  is  far  from  being  either 
impracticable  or  prohibitive  as  to  cost.  Undeniably,  there  would  be 
somewhat  fewer  dependent  children  under  public  care,  because  the  child's 
parents  often  look  with  less  favor  upon  a  mere  transfer  from  their  home 
to  the  home  of  another  than  on  the  entrance  of  the  child  into  the  security 
of  an  imposing  institution. 

There  is  much  to  be  said  in  behalf  of  placing  in  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  the  power  to  select  dependent  children  from  the  institutions  and 
to  place  them  out,  either  in  free  or  boarding  homes,  the  locality  to  pay 
the  cost  of  care  and  maintenance.  This  is  a  matter  which  should  receive 
prompt  consideration  by  the  new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children  within 
the  State  Board  which  I  shall  recommend.  If,  as  the  result  of  an  advance 
all  along  the  line  in  preventive  measures  against  dependency  and  in  pro- 
moting the  cause  of  family  care  by  placing-out,  some  institutions  are 
rendered  less  crowded  and  vacancies  arise,  all  could  soon  be  filled  by 


The  Cottage 
Institution 
versus 
The  Congre- 
gate Institu- 
tion. 


defectives  or  subnormal  children,  for  whom,  as  I  have  said,  far  greater 
provision  must  be  made  than  now  exists. 

I  find  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  State  Charities  Law,  Sections 
301  and  304,  the  State  Board  is  authorized  to  visit  all  foster  homes,  but 
that  only  public  placing-out  agencies  are  required  to  report  to  the  State 
Board  their  placements  (Poor  Law,  Sec.  106).  The  law  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  require  all  placing-out  agencies  to  report  their  place- 
ments, in  order  that  the  State  Board  may  be  able  to  discharge  its  duty  of 
visitation,  and  the  State  Board  should  be  authorized  to  supervise  all 
placing-out  agencies,  whether  public  or  private,  as  to  their  methods  of 
placing-out  and  the  effectiveness  of  their  visitation  of  the  homes. 

In  harmony  with  the  view  that  there  must  always  be  as  close  an 
approach  as  possible  to  the  conditions  of  family  life,  all  authorities  are 
agreed  that  the  congregate  institution  should,  and  eventually  will,  give 
way  to  the  institution  built  on  the  cottage  plan,  although  the  latter  is 
somewhat  more  expensive  in  construction  and  maintenance,  and  that  such 
congregate  institutions  as  remain  should  classify  and  segregate  their 
inmates  into  groups.  Rev.  Father  Higgins,  Supervisor  of  Catholic 
Charities  in  Brooklyn,  states  that  in  the  institutions  the  effort  is  now 
making  to  "approximate  the  child's  abiding  place  to  the  family  home", 
and  that  "the  high  plane  already  attained  is  a  step  toward  the  ideal  in 
view". 

The  change  from  the  congregate  to  the  cottage  type  has  taken  place 
more  rapidly  among  the  Protestant  and  the  Hebrew  institutions  in  Man- 
hattan, due  largely  to  their  greater  resources  and  to  the  smaller  size  of 
the  institutions  relatively.  It  is  admitted  that  it  would  cost  $20,000,000 
to  make  the  conversion  in  the  Catholic  institutions  alone  in  New  York 
City.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  this  cannot  come  about  in  a  day,  but  the 
sooner  the  vital  importance  of  the  change  is  made  known  to  the  private 
benefactors  of  these  institutions,  the  sooner  the  change  will  come.  The 
Hebrew  Sheltering  Guardian  Society  of  New  York  was  a  few  years  ago 
an  overcrowded  congregate  institution  in  the  heart  of  the  city.  The 
board  of  managers  sold  the  property  and  moved  to  the  country  and  have 
established  there  an  institution  on  the  cottage  plan  on  the  most  progressive 
lines.  What  one  institution  has  done,  another  may,  and  in  the  end 
will  do. 

No  avowed  adherents  of  the  public  institution  for  dependent  children 
as  against  the  private  institution  for  dependent  children  appeared  before 


99 

me.  I  could  not  sympathize  with  a  movement,  if  there  were  one,  to 
substitute  the  public  for  the  private  institution  for  dependent  children. 
I  can  fancy  no  ills  in  the  private  institution  that  would  not  quite  as  readily 
arise  in  the  public.  Experiences  in  the  care  of  feeble-minded  in 
the  public  institution  at  Randall's  Island  do  not  encourage  the  thought 
of  public  institutions  for  dependent  children.  It  should  be  said,  however, 
that  unquestionably  an  extensive  improvement  in  the  administration  of 
that  institution  will  follow  the  report  of  the  expert  commission  that  has 
investigated  the  institution  at  the  request  of  the  present  Commissioner  of 
Public  Charities,  if  such  improvement  has  not  already  taken  place.  The 
staggering  cost  to  the  New  York  City  taxpayer  of  establishing  and  main- 
taining sufficient  public  institutions  to  care  for  the  dependent  children 
in  New  York  City  would  end  discussion  of  the  matter,  even  if  there  were 
not  the  question  of  adequate  religious  training  for  the  young  child,  and 
the  further  legal  question  whether  such  plan  would  not  be  regarded  as  a 
return  to  the  system  of  almshouses,  forbidden  by  law  as  homes  for 
children. 

The  question  remaining  for  consideration  is,  how  has  the  State  Board 
of  Charities  discharged  its  duty  under  the  constitution  and  the  laws 
toward  the  private  child-caring  institutions  in  New  York  City.  Whether 
this  question  is  examined  in  pursuance  of  the  mandate  in  my  commission 
to  "examine  and  investigate  the  management  and  affairs  of  the  State 
Board  of  Charities",  or  in  pursuance  of  the  injunction  in  the  letter  to 
make  careful  inquiry  into  the  charges  of  the  City,  justice  to  all  concerned, 
particularly  the  wards  in  the  institutions,  requires  consideration  of  the 
methods  employed  and  results  achieved  in  these  institutions  by  the  State 
Board  under  its  rule-making  and  visitational  power  since  1894. 

First,  as  to  the  rules.     It  is  suggestive  of  the  general  attitude  of  the  Form  of  State 
State  Board  that  its  rules  were  adopted  after  conferences  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  institutions  which  were  to  be  subjected  to  them  and  with 
their  approval  and  consent. 

The  rules  with  which  we  are  now  chiefly  concerned  are  the  following: 

"6.  The  inmates  of  all  charitable,  eleemosynary,  correctional  or 
reformatory  institutions,  wholly  or  partly  under  private  control, 
who  are  retained  therein  as  a  charge  upon  any  county,  city,  town 
or  village,  shall  be  humanely  treated  and  suitably  provided  with 
food,  lodging  and  clothing  and  whatever  further  may  be  necessary 


100 

for  their  safety,  reasonable  comfort  and  well-being,  and  a  copy 
of  the  dietary  shall  be  furnished,  upon  request,  to  any  commissioner, 
officer  or  inspector  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  by  the  officer 
in  charge  of  such  institution. 

7.  Provision  shall  be  made  in  existing  institutions  as  far  as 
required  by  the  Board,  and  in  all  institutions  hereafter  constructed, 
for  suitable  outdoor  recreation  facilities  and  for  adequate  indoor 
recreation  rooms  and  equipment  which  shall  be  in  addition  to  rooms 
used  for  dormitories  and  dining-rooms  or  for  other  purposes. 

8.  Children  of  school  age,  retained  in  any  such  institution  in 
whole   or  in  part   at   public   expense,   shall   receive   regular   and 
suitable  instruction  in  at  least  the  common  school  branches   of 
reading,  spelling,  writing,  arithmetic,  English  grammar,  literature 
of  the  English  language,  geography,  United  States  history,  civics, 
physiology  and  hygiene,  and  elementary  drawing,  and  provision 
shall  be  made  for  the  manual  and  industrial  training  of  children 
of  twelve  years  of  age  and  over  in  a  manner  approved  by  the 
State   Board   of   Charities,   except   in   the  case   of   any  child   of 
twelve  years  of  age  or  over  who  shall  have  been  certified  by  the 
attending  physician  of  the  institution  as  being  physically  or  men- 
tally unable  to  receive  such  training." 

There  is  no  rule  calling  for  vocational  training  in  any  form,  although 
it  is  difficult  to  perceive  a  real  distinction  between  vocational  training 
and  efficacious  industrial  training,  which  is  required  by  statute.  There 
is  no  rule  calling  for  the  formation  of  clubs  or  for  any  degree  of  after- 
care. The  President  of  the  State  Board  said  that  the  rules  cover  what 
the  constitution  and  the  laws  require,  but  omit  all  else,  however  greatly 
the  board  may  desire  it.  The  literal  meaning  of  this  is  that  the  rules, 
which  should  be  a  compendium  of  an  ever  developing  standard  of  child 
care  in  the  institutions,  keep  pace  only  with  legislative  enactment.  The 
legislature  has  never  amended  the  rules  and  has  enacted  no  law  relating 
to  what  the  board  should  require  since  1895.  Oddly,  the  State  Charities 
Law  since  1895  has  required  industrial  training  in  the  institutions,  but 
there  was  no  mention  of  it  in  the  rules  until  1910. 

The  President  said  he  thought  the  board  had  once  adopted  a  rule 
against  corporal  punishment.  It  met  with  a.  storm  of  disapproval.  It 
was  repealed.  The  rules  now  call  for  a  record  of  punishment  authorized, 


but  are  silent  as  to  punishment  actually  employed:^  ^tePf 
board  conceded  that  the  State  owes  a  greater  duty  to  institution  children 
than  to  those  possessing  a  more  favorable  environment  in  their  own 
homes,  and  the  board  itself  has  formally  reported  to  this  effect.  And 
yet,  he  said,  it  would  not  embrace  within  its  rules  provisions  tending  to 
promote  this. 

Secondly,  as  to  visitation,   inspection  and  enforcement.     The   State  Size  of  State 
Board's  staff  of  paid  inspectors  grew  from  3  in  1896  to  21  in  1915,  falling  spection  staff, 
to  19  in  1916;  but  of  these  only  8  inspect  private  institutions,  and  of 
these  8,  only  3  or  4  are  available  regularly  for  children's  institutions  in 
New  York  City.    Eight  inspectors  are  relied  upon  to  inspect  640  institu- 
tions once  a  year,  364  of  which,  including  dispensaries,  are  in  or  near 
New  York  City. 

It  is  now  practically  conceded  by  counsel  that  the  State  Board  had 
not  sufficient  inspectors  and  did  not  make  sufficiently  frequent  visits  to 
justify  it  in  making  its  own  certificate  of  compliance  or  to  enable  it  to 
say  that  the  institutions  had  reasonably  obeyed  the  rules  of  the  board 
or  to  safeguard  satisfactorily  the  interests  of  the  children,  and  he  points 
out  that  to  do  this,  not  to  mention  inspection  on  the  basis  of  any  such 
standards  as  the  City  administration  now  requires,  would  necessitate  an 
extensive  addition  to  the  inspectorial  staff.  I  quite  agree  with  him  in 
this,  but  the  fact  is  that  the  State  Board  itself  has  obviously  and  avowedly 
been  reasonably  well  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  its  inspection  and  the 
number  of  its  inspectors  for  many  years.  The  President  of  the  board 
testified : 

"The  State  Board,  since  it  was  established  as  a  constitutional 
body  in  1894,  has  been  quite  well  equipped  with  a  staff  of  inspectors. 
*  *  *  We  have  received  appropriations  which  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  enable  us  to  extend  our  work  as  we  regarded  the  needs 
of  the  organization.  *  *  *  We  ask  for  employees  as  we  think 
we  need  them.  *  *  *  On  the  whole,  there  has  been  sufficient 
inspection  service  to  see  that  the  inmates  have  reasonable  care, 
and  attention.  *  *  *  I  consider  that  we  have  ample  power 
of  visitation  and  inspection  over  these  institutions  and  have  had 
practically  since  1895" — referring  to  the  26  institutions  over  which 
the  City's  charges  arose. 

He  said  the  board  would  prefer  to  have  two  inspections  each  year.     Dr. 
Smith  said  four. 


H(^(4^^%3liiftS|a4,  Board  been  satisfied  with  the  size  of  its  inspec- 
tional  staff  and,  as  a  rule,  obtained  from  the  legislature  what  it  asked 
for,  but  it  apparently  has  adhered  to  a  policy  about  this  matter.  In  thirty- 
one  years,  the  President  of  the  State  Board  thought  he  had  been  before 
legislative  appropriating  committees  not  over  six  times.  He  had  not 
presented  the  subject  of  the  need  of  increased  inspection  to  any  governor. 
In  the  past  ten  years,  all  administrations  save  one  have  been  friendly  to 
the  State  Board,  he  said.  When  the  President  was  pressed  to  explain 
why  the  board  had  not  asked  for  more  inspectors,  he  said  that  it  was 
because  the  board  was  watched  by  "the  politicians"  and  did  not  want  to 
increase  the  force  suddenly  for  fear  of  legislative  attack  "with  a  view  to 
abolishing  or  cutting  us  down  to  three,  in  order  that  some  political  party 
or  some  three  politicians  might  step  into  the  saddle  and  control  these  large 
affairs".  Inanition,  bred  of  fear,  is  what  this  suggests. 

It  appears  that  the  state  pays  the  inspectors  in  the  Insurance  Depart- 
ment salaries  from  $1,800  to  $6,000,  most  of  them  $3,000.  The  salaries 
paid  the  State  Board  inspectors  of  private  institutions  run  from  $1,200 
to  $1,800.  This  contrast  in  the  compensation  made  by  the  state  to 
inspectors  of  assets  as  against  the  compensation  made  to  inspectors  of 
children  further  suggests  that  there  is  need  of  a  vital  force  within  the 
State  Board,  constantly  pressing  for  the  means  to  perform  the  work  that 
society  expects  of  the  board. 

With  respect  to  the  results  achieved  by  the  State  Board  in  the  chil- 
dren's institutions  prior  to  the  City's  investigation  in  1914,  it  appears 
to  be  clear  that  during  the  twenty  years  preceding  there  was  distinct 
improvement  in  many  matters,  such  as  sanitation  and  fire  protection, 
upon  the  latter  of  which  the  State  Board  was  justly  most  insistent.  It  is, 
however,  the  subject  of  education,  which  the  board  treated  more  exhaus- 
tively in  its  annual  reports,  that  requires  closer  consideration  in  this 
inquiry. 

In  1895,  as  I  have  said,  the  legislature  concluded  that  the  State  Chari- 
ties Law  should  contain  an  express  provision  that  the  State  Board  shall 
"aid  in  securing  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  such  industrial, 
educational  and  moral  training  in  institutions  having  the  care  of  children 
as  is  best  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  inmates,"  and  when  it  visited  the  insti- 
tutions would  ascertain  if  the  methods  of  this  training  were  best  adapted 
to  the  needs  of  the  inmates.  Very  early  the  board  recognized  that 
"mentally  these  children  were  below  the  normal.  Accordingly,  they 


103 

require,  even  more  than  do  the  ordinary  children  living  in  their  own 
homes,  with  the  protection  of  their  parents,  the  benefits  of  education  and 
training  to  fit  them  for  self-support" ;  also  that  "small  classes  and  good 
equipment  are  needed  for  successful  work  with  backward  or  defective 
children" ;  and  "the  institution  child,  being  without  the  incentives  for 
individual  effort  that  the  child  in  the  average  home  has,  is  the  more  in 
need  of  special  courses  to  secure  his  interest  and  develop  his  initiative". 

I  agree  with  this.  These  children  start  in  the  race  heavily  handi- 
capped. The  public  assumes  their  care  and  training.  It  is  in  the  business 
of  training  and  educating  all  children  in  the  public  school  and  in  the  insti- 
tution. It  is,  or  should  be,  the  model  teacher  as  well  as  the  model  em- 
ployer. To  make  all  children  the  best  of  citizens  is  the  noblest  economy. 
The  highest  development  of  the  republic  depends  upon  it.  If  dependent 
children  in  institutions  need  special  training  on  account  of  this  handicap  to 
enable  them  to  have  an  even  chance  in  the  race,  it  is  plainly  sensible  and 
just  to  furnish  it. 

In  1905,  the  board  admitted  that  it  could  not  satisfactorily  do  what 
it  was  required  to  do  under  the  law  as  to  education.  In  1901,  it  began 
to  ask  the  Legislature  in  its  printed  annual  report  for  an  education 
inspector,  and  continued  frequently  to  ask  for  him,  but  has  not  secured 
him  and  has  stopped  asking  for  him.  In  1912,  it  reported  that  in  many 
institutions  the  methods,  organization  and  facilities  for  manual  and  indus- 
trial training  in  their  simpler  forms,  and  also  even  the  elements  of  trade 
instruction  were  far  behind  the  needs.  In  1913,  it  reported  that  classes 
in  many  cases  were  much  too  large,  that  not  all  teachers  were  qualified 
by  training  or  experience  for  their  important  positions  in  teaching  back- 
ward children,  that  in  general  the  facilities  for  useful  training  were  not 
utilized  to  their  fullest  extent,  that  this  was  particularly  true  in  outdoor 
employments,  but  even  in  indoor  employments  the  question  of  training 
was  sometimes  made  secondary  to  ease  of  administration  or  economy  in 
maintenance.  In  1914,  it  reported  that  the  failure  to  provide  a  high  grade 
of  teaching  was  one  reason  for  children  being  inferior  to  those  in  the 
public  schools,  although  it  was  partly  due  to  mental  retardation  and 
irregularity  in  attendance  at  school  prior  to  commitment;  that  in  few 
instances  were  social  advantages  and  industrial  and  scholastic  training 
well  correlated ;  that  many  were  unable,  because  of  lack  of  proper  facili- 
ties or  well  qualified  officers  to  treat  children  individually  in  accordance 
with  their  needs ;  that  while  several  institutions  were  established  on  the 


104 

cottage  plan  and  to  a  degree  overcame  the  institutional  conditions,  and 
there  were  others  in  which  the  management  was  such  as  to  encourage  the 
development  of  initiative  and  self-reliance  in  the  children,  the  situation 
was  in  need  of  much  improvement.  In  1912,  it  reported  that  it  was  highly 
desirable  that  in  all  cases  where  possible  the  children  should  be  sent  to 
schools  outside  of  the  institution  premises  and  placed  in  classes  not  entirely 
made  up  of  institution  children.  Yet  it  appears  elsewhere  that  of  the 
27,000  children  in  institutions  in  New  York  City,  there  are  only  about  100 
in  public  high  schools.  It  is  estimated  that  there  should  be  1,000.  In  only 
those  institutions  receiving  money  out  of  the  public  school  funds  is  there 
supervision  of  any  kind  by  the  Board  of  Education. 

The  most  complete  statement  by  the  State  Board  as  to  educational 
conditions  in  the  private  institutions  in  New  York  City  is  found  in  a 
comprehensive  letter  from  Secretary  Hebberd  to  Comptroller  Prender- 
gast  in  August,  1912.  In  it  statements  are  made  concerning  fourteen  of 
the  institutions  which  were  adversely  reported  on  by  the  City  in  its  investi- 
gation of  1914-1915.  The  letter  contained  comments  with  relation  to 
eighteen  institutions,  but  it  is  stated  that  they  illustrate  generally  the  need 
for  better  training  of  the  children.  The  writer  alleges  variously  as  to 
the  institutions,  but  summarily  stated  it  is  that  the  State  Board  found  in 
1912  that  children  of  twelve  had  only  two  hours'  school  work  daily, 
teaching  force  largely  ill  equipped,  some  children  not  in  school  at  all, 
little  industrial  training  except  in  caring  for  the  institution,  classes  too 
large,  progress  not  what  it  should  be,  industrial  training  confined  to 
repairing  shoes,  such  industrial  training  as  was  given  had  little  educa- 
tional value  and  usually  did  not  proceed  beyond  the  daily  labor  in  caring 
for  the  institution. 

Such  is  the  State  Board's  own  record  of  its  achievement  in  what  is 
probably  the  most  important  field  of  institution  care !  This  is  the  record 
after  seventeen  years  of  supervision  under  a  law  that  made  it  compulsory 
on  the  board  to  aid  in  securing  such  industrial  and  educational  training  as 
is  best  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  children  and  to  ascertain  if  such  is  being 
given. 

Having  considered  the  extent  to  which  the  State  Board  system  has 
developed  the  fundamental  matter  of  education  in  the  institutions  in  New 
York  City,  in  so  far  as  it  is  exhibited  in  its  own  annual  reports  and  in  the 
letter  of  its  secretary  to  the  comptroller  in  1912,  we  reach  consideration 


105 

of  the  effect  of  the  New  York  City  investigation  of  1914  and  1915  in  this 
and  in  other  fields  of  institutional  care  and  training. 

In  1910  and  1911,  a  committee  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor-  Citv'sFinan- 
tionment,  consisting  of  Mr.  Prendergast,  the  Comptroller,  and  Mr.  gationin 
Mitchel,  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  in  an  investigation  of 
the  accounts  of  these  institutions,  ascertained  incidentally  conditions 
affecting  the  welfare  of  the  children  in  some  of  the  institutions  that  Mayor 
Mitchel  declares  were  deplorable.  These  were  not  described  in  detail, 
then  or  since.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  report  of  this  was  made  to 
the  State  Board  of  Charities.  Comptroller  Prendergast,  in  December, 
1911,  wrote  a  foreword  to  the  public  report  of  the  committee.  In  this 
he  pointed  out  that  the  official  duty  of  the  City  administration  had  always 
been — 

"that  such  regulation  over  the  institutions  as  was  necessary  would 
be  given  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  How  well  equipped  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  was  to  give  adequate  supervision  has  notr 
apparently,  been  a  matter  of  local  concern.  This  condition  of 
aloofness  with  respect  to  the  management  of  private  institutions 
has  been  characteristic  of  even  the  Department  of  Public  Char- 
ities. *  *  * 

"Where  responsibility  rests  for  the  supervision  of  service; 
what  degree  of  regulation  should  be  exercised ;  who  should  deter- 
mine the  conditions  of  commitment  and  discharge ;  what  character 
of  treatment  and  service  should  publicly  supported  inmates  receive 
in  private  institutions ;  what  kind  of  education  should  be  given 
them ;  what  efforts  are  made  by  the  institutions  properly  to  equip 
their  inmates  to  meet  the  obligations  of  citizenship  and  economic 
independence  after  discharge ;  whose  responsibility  it  is  to  find 
permanent  foster  homes  for  children  bereft  of  parents  and  com- 
mitted, in  consequence,  to  what  in  theory  should  be  only  the  tem- 
porary custody  of  the  institution — these  and  many  other  questions 
vitally  affecting  the  welfare  of  the  thousands  of  children  who  by 
misfortune  are  brought  into  the  care  and  keeping  of  public  author- 
ities it  has  apparently  been  nobody's  business  heretofore  to  solve.'* 

When  John  Purroy  Mitchel  became  Mayor  in  1914,  he  named  John  Mayor  Mir- 
A.  Kingsbury,  possessed  of  special  attainments  in  the  field  of  social  istration.1"' 
welfare,  as  Commissioner  of  Public  Charities,  and  specifically  charged 


106 


him  to  ascertain  the  condition  of  dependent  children  in  the  private  institu- 
tions, recalling  to  him  the  work  of  the  committee  in  1911.  Commissioner 
Kingsbury  selected  as  his  second  deputy  William  J.  Doherty,  who  had 
long  been  the  efficient  secretary  of  the  Catholic  Home  Bureau,  and,  in 
contemplation  of  what  has  followed,  placed  him  in  direct  charge  of 
these  children's  institutions. 

Com.  Kings-  The  City's  investigation  of  the  institutions,   which   resulted   in   the 

'  vesti"  formulation  of  these  charges,  was  shortly  under  way.  The  Mayor  was 
an  intimate  adviser  from  the  beginning.  It  is  evident  to  me  that  the 
investigation  came  as  a  consequence  of  the  financial  investigation  of  1911, 
and  that  the  City  had  at  last,  and  for  the  first  time,  decided  to  exercise  its 
right  of  inspection  and  find  out  for  itself  what  were  the  conditions  in  the 
institutions  affecting  the  welfare  of  dependent  children.  The  Mayor 
called  it  the  discharge  of  a  moral  obligation  upon  the  City.  I  have 
already  pointed  out  that,  in  view  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  the  City  in 
the  charter  to  issue  certificates,  there  was  by  implication  a  legal  obligation 
upon  the  City  to  inspect.  But  in  the  aspect  of  the  case  that  I  am  now 
considering,  it  matters  not  which  it  was.  In  any  event  the  City  adminis- 
tration perceived  an  obligation  and  meant  to  perform  it  and  did  perform 
it. 

The  objects  of  the  City's  investigation  have  been  variously  stated  — 
to  destroy  the  institutions;  to  convert  the  private  institutions  into  public 
institutions  ;  to  place-out  all  the  children  in  private  families  ;  to  secularize 
the  institutions  ;  to  take  God  out  of  the  hearts  of  the  children  ;  to  found 
charity  upon  morals  and  not  upon  religion  ;  to  attack  particularly  the 
institutions  of  one  religious  faith  ;  to  destroy  the  State  Board  of  Chari- 
ties. There  is  no  evidence  before  me  that  would  remotely  justify  any 
such  conclusion.  I  am  convinced  that  there  is  no  basis  for  any  of  these 
claims  and  am  amazed  that  apparently  they  have  received  such  wide 
credence.  But  if  any  of  them  could  have  been  the  objective,  it  has 
been  defeated  in  so  far  as  it  may  depend  upon  any  favor  from  me. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  fairly  be  said,  as  sometimes  it  is  said, 
that  the  sole  object  of  the  City's  investigation  was  to  establish  suitable 
standards  for  the  development  of  the  institutions.  This,  I  think,  was  the 
principal  object  of  the  investigation.  It  was  so  stated  by  Mr.  Doherty 
in  his  address  to  the  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections 
in  Baltimore  in  May,  1915,  months  before  Commissioner  Kingsbury 
suggested  an  investigation  by  the  legislature  or  by  the  executive.  Other 


Objects  of 
fiorunv 


107 

reasons  for  the  City's  investigation  appearing  in  the  testimony  of  the 
Mayor  and  the  Commissioner  and  his  Deputy  were:  To  enable  the 
Department  of  Public  Charities  to  discharge  conscientiously  its  duty  in 
selecting  institutions  for  commitments ;  to  promote  placing-out ;  to  prevent 
improper  payments  by  the  City;  to  secure  more  efficient  supervision  and 
more  efficient  discharge  of  its  duties  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 

An  Advisory  Committee  and  associates  were  named  early  in  1914  Members  of 
by  Commissioner  Kingsbury  to  conduct  the  investigation.  The  mem-  Committee, 
bers  of  the  committee  were  ,Deputy  Commissioner  Doherty ;  Rev.  Brother 
Barnabas,  Superintendent  of  the  Lincoln  Agricultural  School,  a  Catholic 
orphanage  of  the  modified  cottage  type ;  Dr.  R.  R.  Reeder,  Superintendent 
of  the  orphanage  of  the  Orphan  Asylum  Society,  a  Protestant  institu- 
tion of  the  cottage  type ;  and  Dr.  Ludwig  B.  Bernstein,  Superintendent 
of  the  Hebrew  Sheltering  Guardian  Orphan  Asylum,  formerly  of  the 
congregate,  now  of  the  cottage  type.  These  men  were  highly  qualified 
for  the  work  of  this  committee,  and  their  associates  were  fully  com- 
petent. It  should  be  said,  however,  that  Dr.  Reeder  and  Dr.  Bernstein 
were  the  heads  of  modern  institutions,  highly  favored  financially,  and 
this  circumstance  suggests  that  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  in  some 
respects  their  standards  were  higher  than  would  be  immediately  attainable 
by  some  of  the  institutions. 

Some  evidence  was  given  of  efforts  to  embarrass  the  program  of  Attitude  of 
the  Commissioner  of  Public  Chanties,  but  most  of  it  turned  out  to  toward*10 
relate  to  matters  other  than  his  1914  investigation  of  private  institutions  Inspec 
for  children,  and  such  of  it  as  is  significant,  as  the  retirement  of  Brother 
Barnabas  from  the  committee,  and  the  pressure  to  procure  the  retirement 
of  Dr.  Bernstein,  is  overshadowed  by  the  unanimity  with  which  the  insti- 
tutions of  all  religious  faiths  opened  their  doors  to  the  City's  inspectors. 
It  is  true  that  at  the  outset  a  general  protest  was  made  that"  the  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Charities  should  not  repeat  inspections  of  those  branches 
of  the  institution  service  subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  Fire  and  Health 
and  Education  departments,  and  that  one  institution  refused  to  permit 
inspection  until  the  president  of  its  board  was  consulted  and  threatened 
to  march  800  children  to  the  steps  of  the  City  Hall  in  case  commitments 
were  not  resumed.  But  these  were  isolated  cases  and  resulted  only  in 
delay.  On  the  other  hand,  an  incident  significant  of  the  attitude  of  higher 
church  authorities  toward  official  supervision  generally  was  related  by 
Thomas  M.  Mulry,  who  testified  before  me  that  he  had  advised  the  State 


108 

Board  to  withhold  a  certificate  when  the  comptroller's  committee  was 
investigating  in  1910,  and  the  Mother  Superior  had  said  to  him,  "Who 
is  the  bigot  that  did  this  ?"  And  Mr.  Mulry  replied  that  he  was  and  that 
the  certificate  would  issue  when  improvements  were  made.  Subsequently 
he  told  this  to  the  Cardinal,  who  said,  "Keep  it  up ;  it  will  help  the  work 
along." 

Public  interest  in  these  questions,  during  and  after  the  public  hearings 
before  me,  was  not  only  intense,  but  unfortunately  was  characterized  by 
much  resentment.  This  feeling  was  general  and  was  shown  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  many  of  the  institutions  administered  under  the  auspices  of 
varying  religious  faiths.  How  much  of  this  was  inevitable  and  how  much 
might  have  been  avoided  cannot,  I  think,  be  easily  stated.  It  has  always 
seemed  to  me  obvious  that  the  "New  York  system",  as  it  is  called,  of 
granting  public  aid  for  the  partial  maintenance  and  training  of  inmates 
in  private  institutions — necessary,  in  a  measure,  as  it  has  come  to  be,  and 
possessing  reciprocal  advantages  to  the  municipality  and  the  private 
benefactor — has  within  it,  nevertheless,  seeds  fruitful  for  dissension  when 
rigid  official  inspection  enters.  So  much  of  the  feeling  to  which  I  have 
referred  as  was  attributable  to  this  was  inevitable  and  had  its  basis  in 
the  City's  investigation,  begun  and  ended  before  I  was  appointed. 

For  so  much  of  the  resentment  as  may  have  been  aroused  from  such 
methods  of  conducting  my  inquiry  as  seemed  to  me  best,  I  am  responsible. 
The  evidence  presented  to  me  by  counsel  upon  both  sides  of  the  contro- 
versy was  so  exhaustive  that  I  found  it  unnecessary  to  investigate  exten- 
sively along  new  lines.  It  would  neither  be  becoming  nor  useful  for  me  to 
protest  my  freedom  either  from  religious  animus  or  from  personal  or 
partisan  affiliations  tending  to  affect  my  judgment.  Those  who  know  me 
have  already  determined  this  in  their  own  minds.  Those  who  do  not 
know  me  must  base  their  conclusions  upon  my  course  throughout. 

But  I  do  desire  to  say  that  some  widespread  public  animosities  might 
have  been  avoided  if  the  so-called  "Farrell-Potter  pamphlets",  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  so-lalled  "Moree-anonymous  pamphlet"  on  the  other,  had 
never  been  issued.  All  these  were  deplorable  from  every  point  of  view. 
No  one  of  them  helped  the  cause  it  was  intended  to  help.  The  exami- 
nation that  raged  over  them  certainly  protracted  the  hearings  and  probably 
confused  in  the  public  mind  the  real  object  of  the  general  inquiry.  I 
should  not  have  called  Father  Farrell  before  me  and  permitted  the  exami- 
nation of  Mr.  Hebberd,  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board,  as  to  his 


109 

relations  with  Father  Farrell  and  Dr.  Potter,  had  it  not  been  that  I  desired 
to  give  Father  Farrell  an  opportunity  to  correct  certain  statements  about 
the  Governor's  commissioner,  but  above  all,  to  ascertain  what  share,  if 
any,  Mr.  Hebberd  had  had  in  the  preparation  of  the  pamphlets.  It  was 
plainly  my  duty  to  report  to  the  Governor  as  to  the  qualifications  for 
office  of  the  executive  head  of  the  State  Board  and  what  manner  of  man 
he  was.  When  the  examination  reached  the  stage  where  suggestions 
were  made  on  the  one  side  that  the  crimes  of  libel,  perjury  and  conspiracy 
had  been  committed,  and  on  the  other  that  a  crime  had  been  committed 
in  tapping  telephone  wires,  I  wrote  an  opinion  pointing  out  that  mine  was 
not  a  judicial  inquiry  and  that  further  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  Grand 
Jury.  As  I  write  this,  the  whole  matter  of  the  pamphlets  is  pending 
before  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  an  indictment  has  been  found 
by  reason  of  the  use  of  the  telephone  wires.  For  this  reason,  if  for  no 
other,  I  should  refrain  from  further  comment ;  but,  in  any  event,  I  have 
said  all  that  is  required  in  view  of  the  slight  relation  that  the  subject 
bears  to  the  real  question  before  me,  especially  since  Mr.  Hebberd  has 
resigned  his  office  as  secretary  of  the  State  Board.  In  the  interest  of 
truth,  however,  I  append  the  following  list  to  show  the  sequence  of 
events  as  established  in  the  record  before  me : 


DATA  AS  TO  PAMPHLETS. 
1916. 

Feb.  10.  Mr.  Mulry  told  Mr.  Hebberd  there  was  to  be  an  attack 
upon  him  (Hebberd).  Mr.  Hebberd  spoke  to  Father 
Farrell,  who  said  he  had  been  authorized  to  defend  the 
institutions. 

Feb.  14.  Mr.  Moree,  publicity  director  of  State  Charities  Aid  Asso- 
ciation, conceived  the  idea  of  his  pamphlet.  He  spoke  to 
several  about  it  at  City  Club,  probably  including  Commis- 
sioner Kingsbury. 

Feb.  14.          Commissioner  Kingsbury  gave  testimony  which  led  to  news- 
paper headline  hereinafter  referred  to. 
Feb.  15.          Father    Farrell    dates    and    transmits    "Open    Letter    to 

Governor". 

New  York  Herald  publishes  "orphans  and  pigs"  headline. 
Mr.  Moree  works  on  his  pamphlet. 


110 

Feb.  16.         All  newspapers  print  Father  Farrell's  letter  to  the  Governor. 
Mr.  Moree  talks  with  Commissioner  Kingsbury  and  sends 

copy  (except  cover  and  one  page)  to  Press  Association  to 

have  plates  made. 
State   Charities   Aid   Association   meets   and   authorizes   a 

committee  to  prepare  a  resolution  to  be  sent  to  Governor 

as  to  investigation. 

Feb.  15-18.     Mr.  Moree  orders  pamphlet  from  Blumenberg  Press. 
Feb.  18.         Mr.  Moree's  copy  for  pamphlet  reaches  office  of  manager  of 

Blumenberg  Press. 
Feb.  21.          State  Charities  Aid  Association  committee  meets  and  drafts 

resolution  and  is  told  by  Mr.  Moree  of  his  pamphlet. 
Estimate  for  Moree  pamphlet  sent  to  him  by  printer. 
Commissioner    Kingsbury    procures    money    for    printing 

Moree  pamphlet. 

Feb.  24.         First   Farrell   pamphlet   ordered    ("The    Strong   Commis- 
sion"). 

Feb.  24-25.     Moree  pamphlet  printed. 
Feb.  27.         Mailing  begun  of  Moree  pamphlet. 
Feb.  28.         Last  deliveries  of  Moree  pamphlet  made  by  printer. 
Feb.  29.          Second  Farrell  pamphlet  ordered  ("A  Public  Scandal"). 
Mch.    3.          Third  Farrell  pamphlet  ordered  ("Charity  for  Revenue"). 
Mch.    3-4.       Last  Moree  pamphlets  mailed. 
Mch.  13.          Fourth  Farrell  pamphlet  ordered  ("Priest  Baiting"). 

Extent  of  Commissioner  Kingsbury's  advisory  committee  in  1914  and  1915  in- 

Investigation.  .  100-.        • 

vestigated  38  institutions,  one  of  which  was  a  hospital.  In  the  inquiry 
before  me,  they  decided  to  rely  upon  26  of  these  in  support  of  the  accusa- 
tions of  Commissioner  Kingsbury  against  the  State  Board.  Subsequently 
two  were  withdrawn,  it  appearing  that  there  was  some  question  of  the 
City's  right  to  commit  thereto.  The  committee  criticized  the  other  12 
institutions,  but  not  to  such  extent  as  to  rely  upon  them  to  substantiate 
the  charges.  These  12  institutions  were  given  favorable  ratings  by  the 
committee.  Mr.  Doherty,  in  his  address  at  the  Baltimore  conference  in 
May,  1915,  spoke  of  four  of  them,  two  Catholic  and  two  Jewish  insti- 
tutions, as  "bending  every  energy  to  measure  up  to  the  standards  of 
progressive  and  enlightened  child  care".  Commissioner  Kingsbury  said 
in  his  report  to  Mayor  Mitchel,  of  December  31,  1914:  "It  is  our  aim  to 


Ill 

strengthen  those  institutions  which  are  striving  to  improve  their  work 
and  at  the  same  time  to  deal  vigorously  with  those  institutions  which  in 
the  presence  of  undesirable  conditions  are  making  no  effort  to  remedy 
them".  He  testified  that  he  found  the  better  institutions  crowded,  and 
in  order  to  make  room  therein  succeeded  in  sending  back  1,200  children 
to  their  own  homes  in  1914. 

On  the  controverted  list,  there  were  12  Catholic,  14  Protestant  and  no  Results  of 
Jewish  institutions.     On  the  non-controverted  or  good  list  of  12,  there  Investigation- 
were  8  Catholic,  1  Protestant  and  3  Jewish  institutions.    The  committee's 
ratings  of  institutions  on  the  controverted  list  were  lower,   as  a  rule, 
among  the  Protestant  institutions  than  among  the  Catholic.     One  may 
draw  such  inferences  from  this  as  he  desires.     It  has  no  significance  for 
me,  one  way  or  the  other. 

I  have  personally  examined  with  care  the  inspection  reports  and  other 
exhibits  offered  by  the  City's  advisory  committee  and  by  the  State 
Board  with  respect  to  each  of  the  24  institutions  remaining  on  the  con- 
troverted list,  in  some  cases  examining  the  reports  of  the  State  Board 
as  far  back  as  for  the  year  1904,  and  I  have  considered  all  the  testimony 
that  was  received,  particularly  from  the  representatives  of  the  institu- 
tions.. 

Commissioner  Kingsbury  did  not  rest  with  describing  the  conditions  "Unfit  for 
in  some  of  the  institutions  as  "undesirable",  but,  in  his  testimony  before  HaSfation." 
me  said :  "Many  of  them  were  unfit  for  human  habitation".  If  I  under- 
stand what  is  the  common  acceptance  of  the  meaning  of  these  words,  I 
do  not  agree  with  him.  On  the  contrary,  I  find  that  not  one  of  them  was 
"unfit  for  human  habitation".  It  would  hardly  serve  a  useful  purpose 
to  refine  upon  this  or  to  attempt  to  picture  an  institution  for  children 
that  would  be  "unfit  for  human  habitation",  or  to  feel  certain  that  two 
persons  are  thinking  in  the  same  terms  when  one  says  an  institution  is 
not  fit  for  human  habitation  and  another  says  it  is.  But  I  repeat  that, 
as  I  understand  the  phrase,  not  one  of  the  24  institutions  was  near  a 
state  in  which  it  could  be  said  to  have  been  "unfit  for  human  habitation." 

Commissioner  Kingsbury  also  said,  in  his  testimony  and  in  his  report  "Public 
to  Mayor  Mitchel : 

"During  the  year  1914,  however,  we  found  that  the  conditions 
in  some  of  these  institutions  bearing  the  certificate  of  approval  by 
the  State  Board  of  Charities  were  such  as  to  be  little  less  than 
public  scandal  and  disgrace." 


112 

In  this  I  feel  compelled  to  say  he  was  right.  Seven,  at  least,  of  the 
24  institutions  must  be  thus  described.  In  not  all  of  these  seven  was  this 
true  in  the  same  degree  or  for  the  same  reasons.  In  some  or  all  of  these 
seven  institutions  there  was  no  manual  or  industrial  training  worthy  the 
name,  and  such  as  there  was,  was  limited  to  a  fraction  of  the  children  over 
twelve  years  of  age,  no  economic  training,  little  organized  physical  train- 
ing, utterly  inadequate  provision  for  outdoor  and  indoor  play  and  recrea- 
tion, inferior  scholastic  training  in  overcrowded  classes,  an  impoverished 
social  life,  and  dining-room  equipment  and  service  so  wretched  as  to 
make  it  nearly  impossible  to  teach  table  manners.  In  some  institutions 
there  were  toilets  in  an  undescribable  condition,  which  evidently  was  not 
of  a  temporary  nature,  girls  working  long  hours  without  compensation  at 
hard  institutional  labor  with  scant  opportunity  for  scholastic  or  other 
training,  and  in  the  heads  of  many  of  the  children  were  found  nits  and 
vermin.  In  one  instance,  the  institution  was  infested  with  bed-bugs, 
and  had  been  more  than  once.  In  another,  it  was  impossible  to  tell  from 
the  records  how  many  children  had  died  during  the  year,  whether  it  was 
one  number  or  another,  or  still  another. 

If  this  were  the  first  or  second  year  of  official  supervision,  under 
rules  that  were  in  the  making,  this  verdict  might  be  harsh.  But  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  most  of  these  institutions  have  been  receiving  grants 
from  the  city  for  care  and  education,  under  regular  inspection  by  the 
State  Board,  for  twenty  years,  subject  to  rules  calling,  in  behalf  of  the 
children,  for  "whatever  may  be  necessary  for  their  safety,  reasonable 
comfort  and  well-being",  and  in  the  receipt  of  constant  admonition  from 
the  State  Board,  and,  as  I  have  said,  under  a  peculiarly  solemn  obliga- 
tion to  give  these  unfortunate  wards  that  special  training  which  would 
tend  to  offset  the  handicap  with  which  they  enter  the  race  in  life,  it  is 
certainly  not  unjust  to  say  that  their  condition  was  "little  less  than  public 
scandal  and  disgrace." 

Commissioner  Kingsbury  said,  in  his  report  to  the  Mayor: 

"Naturally  when  we  found  on  the  certified  lists  institutions  in 
which  the  beds  were  alive  with  vermin,  in  which  the  heads  of  boys 
and  girls  were  itching  with  uncleanliness,  in  which  antiquated 
methods  of  punishment  prevailed,  and  in  which  the  children  were 
disgracefully  overworked  and  underfed,  we  found  it  necessary  to  de- 
cline to  commit  children  to  these  institutions  and  to  decline  to  accept 
as  reliable  the  official  reports  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities." 


113. 

With  some  qualifications,  this  statement  was  correct.  There  was  no 
institution  of  which  all  these  things  might  have  been  truthfully  said,  nor 
do  I  understand  the  declaration  to  mean  that  there  was. 

There  was  one  institution  in  which  the  beds  were  alive  with  vermin; 
in  another  they  existed  to  some  extent. 

There  were  twelve  institutions,  or  one-half  of  those  on  the  list,  in 
which  nits  or  vermin  or  both  were  found  in  the  heads  of  some  or  many  of 
the  children.  While  it  is  not  easy  to  keep  an  institution  free  from  these, 
constant  and  intelligent  attention  will. 

There  were  four  institutions  in  which  antiquated  methods  of  punish- 
ment prevailed,  not  inhuman  or  even  necessarily  cruel,  but  indicating  an 
utter  misconception  of  the  kind  of  discipline  that  will  genuinely  improve 
even  an  exceptionally  unruly  child;  such  punishments,  for  example,  as 
striking  a  child  on  the  head  with  a  key,  making  him  spend  a  part  of  his 
fifteen  minutes  at  dinner  standing  with  his  face  to  the  wall,  making  him 
sit  on  the  floor  behind  the  bed,  making  him  wear  bi-colored  trousers, 
whipping  large  girls  with  a  strap  on  the  hands. 

There  were  five  institutions  out  of  the  24  in  which  the  older  girls 
were  overworked  at  hard  institution  labor,  with  little  or  no  compensation, 
and  were  thereby  cut  off  from  opportunity  for  scholastic  and  real  indus- 
trial or  vocational  training,  but  in  only  one  or  two  cases  would  it  be  fair 
to  say  that  they  were  "disgracefully"  overworked. 

There  were  three  institutions  in  which  the  children  were  inadequately 
fed,  and  several  more  in  which  they  were  improperly  fed,  on  the  basis 
of  minimum  dietaries  approved  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  cir- 
culated among  the  institutions  by  that  board. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  question  before  me  relates  to  the  culpa-  issue  is  as 
bility  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  not  of  the  institutions  them-  not  as  to 

ii-  .....       Institutions. 

selves,  and  that  improvements  have  been  made  or  are  in  the  making  in 
all  the  institutions  on  the  controverted  list  to  such  extent  that  they  are 
in  receipt  of  the  aid  of  the  city,  with  at  least  the  tacit  approval  of  the 
Department  of  Public  Charities,  the  findings  that  I  have  made  as  to  these 
24  institutions  are  sufficiently  specific.  After  I  had  concluded  my  exam- 
ination of  the  record  as  to  each  institution,  a  recapitulation  discloses  that, 
by  chance,  under  none  of  the  headings  that  I  have  used  do  the  ad- 
verse conditions  relate  exclusively  to  the  institutions  of  either  of  the 
religious  faiths. 


114 

bans  There  were  many  newspaper   accounts   of   the  hearings  before  me 

which  did  injustice  to  some  of  the  institutions ,  and  did  not  accurately 
state  the  testimony.  I  did  all  that  I  could  to  induce  the  newspapers  to 
publish  the  good  as  well  as  the  bad  about  the  institutions  that  was 
coming  out  in  the  reports  of  both  the  State  Board  and  the  City,  but 
usually  it  was  without  avail.  In  view  of  the  injustice  done,  one  inci- 
dent requires,  I  think,  specific  mention.  A  newspaper  printed  this  head- 
line: "Orphans  and  Pigs  Fed  from  Same  Bowl".  This  was  reproduced 
in  the  so-called  "anonymous"  pamphlet.  It  was  based  on  the  testimony 
of  Commissioner  Kingsbury  that  Mr.  Doherty  told  him  that  the  children 
emptied  their  bowls  "into  the  can  from  which  the  soup  or  stew  had  been 
dished  and  that  the  same  can  was  later  taken  out,  as  I  remember,  to  feed 
the  pigs  with.  That  is  one  thing  I  remember."  Commissioner  Kings- 
bury  gave  this  testimony  in  answer  to  an  insistence  that  he  tell  what 
matters  he  based  his  charges  on.  In  justice -to  Commissioner  Kingsbury 
it  should  be  noted  that  he  did  not  testify,  as  the  newspaper  phrased  it, 
that  the  orphans  and  pigs  were  fed  from  the  same  bowl.  But  his  recol- 
lection of  what  Mr.  Doherty  had  reported  was  faulty,  for,  while  Mr. 
Doherty  described  most  disgusting  conditions  of  table  service,  he  did  not 
say  that  the  can  or  bowl  into  which  the  remainder  was  poured  was  taken 
to  the  pigs.  He  did  say  that  the  pails  containing  the  refuse  were  dumped 
into  barrels,  and  his  only  reference  to  pigs  was  that  the  dining-room,  after 
the  boys  had  left  it,  looked  more  like  a  pig-pen  than  anything  else.  An 
institution  witness  made  the  matter  perfectly  clear  by  testifying  that  the 
tin  pail  in  which  the  soup  was  brought  and  from  which  it  was  served, 
and  into  which  the  remainder  was  poured,  was  never  taken  to  the  pigs 
but  was  emptied  into  a  garbage  can  in  the  scullery  and  the  pails  were 
thereafter  scoured  and  polished  each  day.  This  institution  from  my  own 
personal  observation  now  well  deserves  the  commendatory  references 
made  to  it  by  Commissioner  Kingsbury  in  his  testimony  for  improve- 
ments made. 

Board  I  find  that  the  State  Board  of  Chanties  was  censurable  for  failure  to 

issue  certificates  of  non-compliance  with  its  rules,  or  for  failure  to  with- 
hold certificates  of  compliance  therewith,  when  and  as  often  as  they 
should  have  been  issued  or  withheld,  as  to  every  one  of  the  twenty-four 
institutions  on  the  City's  controverted  list. 

I  find  that  this  is  true  on  the  basis  of  the  reports  of  the  State  Board's 
own  inspectors  and  after  full  consideration  of  the  testimony  of  the  insti- 


115 

tution  representatives.  Serious  faults,  frequently  criticized  in  these  re- 
ports, most  of  which  could  have  been  easily  remedied  were  permitted 
to  remain  unattended  to  for  years,  and,  as  a  result,  proper  care  and  train- 
ing were  not  provided. 

I  find  it  is  beyond  question  that  such  vigorous,  yet  reasonable  and  just, 
action  as  the  State  Board  might  have  taken  from  time  to  time  prior  to 
1914  relative  to  these  institutions,  would  have  resulted  in  such  improved 
conditions  as  would  have  made  unnecessary  or  futile  the  City's  investi- 
gation in  1914  and  1915. 

I  find  that  the  reports  of  the  City's  inspectors  also  call  for  censure 
of  the  State  Board  for  negligence  as  to  certificates  concerning  every 
one  of  the  24  institutions,  except  in  such  cases,  if  any,  as  those  in  which 
the  State  Board  may  have  recently  withheld  a  certificate  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  City  Department. 

The  City  has  proved  its  case  against  the  State  Board  out  of  the  pages  city's  Case 
of  the  State  Board's  own  inspection  reports.  The  City's  investigation  state  Board 
and  its  inspection  reports  have  served  to  bring  into  the  light  what  was  Reports. 
already  wrapped  up  in  the  records  of  the  State  Board  and  lying,  for 
the  most  part,  unheeded  in  institution  desks.  I  am  not  unmindful  of 
the  limitations  upon  institution  boards  of  managers  by  reason  of  in- 
adequate means  or  unsatisfactory  superintendence  or  the  like.  I  have 
been  a  member  of  an  institution  board  of  managers  myself  and  from  that 
standpoint  have  read  the  State  Board's  inspection  reports  containing 
their  lists  of  "Needs  and  Defects"  and  "Recommendations",  and  for  years 
have  been  in  conference  with  the  heads  of  other  institutions,  public  and 
private.  So,  on  the  whole,  I  feel  that  I  know  how  much  attention  is 
usually  paid  to  these  recommendations  and  how  much  drive  there  is  be- 
hind them.  Progress  there  has  been  in  these  children's  institutions  in 
New  York  City,  and  great  progress  it  has  been,  as  I  have  said  several 
times ;  but,  as  I  see  it,  if  the  State  Board  of  Charities  had  discharged  its 
full  duty  in  the  situation  and  the  laws  for  the  enforcement  of  its  own 
rules,  the  institutions  would  have  found  the  way,  the  City  would  have  done 
its  part,  and  in  1914  and  1915  there  would  not  have  been  found  such 
conditions  in  some  of  the  institutions  as  to  justify  the  characterization 
that  they  were  "little  less  than  public  scandal  and  disgrace". 

The  State  Board's  inspection  reports  were  not  "widely  at  variance  Quality  of 
with  the  findings  of  the  City's  inspectors".  There  were  many  additions,  inspection 
of  course,  in  some  cases  on  vital  matters,  and  often  the  City's  inspectors 


116 

found  defects  and  faults  which  the  State  Board  inspectors  did  not,  and 
sometimes,  but  rarely,  the  reverse  was  true,  but  in  the  main  there  were 
not  wide  variations  in  the  ultimate  conclusions  of  the  two  sets  of  inspec- 
tors, however  widely  the  ratings  differed.  Nor  is  it  fair  to  say  that  the 
agents  of  the  State  Board  "had  apparently  gone  through  their  inspection 
of  these  institutions  with  both  eyes  closed  or  with  one  auspicious  and  one 
drooping  eye".  The  State  Board  itself  has  failed  to  furnish  its  inspectors 
with  adequate  standards  against  which  they  should  measure  the  child- 
caring  institutions,  and  has  failed  to  provide  or  ask  for  enough  inspectors, 
but  the  inspectors  themselves  are  honest  and  vigilant. 

What  have  been  the  methods  of  rule  enforcement  actually  employed 
by  the  State  Board?  From  1895  to  date,  the  board  has  once,  and  only 
once,  issued  a  certificate  of  non-compliance  with  its  rules,  and  this  was  in 
July,  1910,  one  day  after  the  date  of  a  report  of  inspectors  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Finance  in  New  York  City  reflecting  most  seriously  upon  an  in- 
stitution in  Brooklyn.  This  institution  is  not  one  of  those  upon  which 
the  City's  investigators  reported  adversely  in  1914  or  1915.  The  record 
does  not  show  what  reason  was  given  by  the  State  Board  for  issuing  this 
certificate  of  non-compliance.  The  duty  of  issuing  this  certificate  of 
non-compliance  is  based  upon  a  charter  provision  of  16  years  standing. 
Yet  the  President  of  the  State  Board  could  not  say  whether  the  board 
had  the  power  or  duty  to  issue  such  certificate  when  warranted ;  "I  think 
I  must  have  known  it".  He  said  he  "presumed  the  board  would  not 
issue  it  unless  in  its  opinion  the  violation  of  the  rules  was  so  material  as 
to  be  dangerous  \o  the  children  in  the  institution."  The  effect  under  the 
charter  of  issuing  a  certificate  of  non-compliance  is  to  prevent  further 
commitments  by  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  and,  under  the  rules, 
to  terminate  the  retention  by  the  institution  of  any  inmate  as  a  public 
charge. 

Apparently  the  State  Board  has  never  once  withheld  the  certificate 
of  compliance,  and  thus  stopped  payments,  for  the  reason  alone  that  an 
institution  had  failed  to  comply  with  the  rule  and  the  statute  as  to  indus- 
trial and  educational  training,  although  this  failure  may  have  been  per- 
sistent for  four  or  five  years,  as  shown  in  the  inspection  reports  of  the 
board  itself.  Indeed,  failure  along  these  lines  has  been  continuous,  as 
appears  from  the  secretary's  letter  to  the  comptroller.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  board  has  issued  the  certificate  knowing  that  the  rule  and  the 
statute  were  not  complied  with.  In  the  briefs  of  counsel  for  the  board,  it 


117 

was  asserted  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  board,  under  such  circumstances, 
not  to  say  it  was  satisfied  with  the  institution  certificate.  At  the  hearings, 
the  claim  was  that,  as  long  as  the  institution  heads  declared  that  they 
obeyed  the  rule,  it  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  board  to  add  its  sig- 
nature and  permit  payments  and  commitments  to  continue,  although  the 
board  knew  the  declaration  was  false,  the  board  relying  in  promises  of 
improvement  or  taking  the  position  that  the  violation  of  the  rule  was 
neither  substantial  nor  vital.  In  this  the  board  would  seem  to  set  itself 
above  the  legislature.  The  President  testified  that  the  board  would  not 
withhold  the  certificate  for  this  reason,  but  would  merely  continue  to 
write  the  managers  and  to  urge  improvements. 

Out  of  a  possible  annual  total  of  about  7,500  certificates,  that  is,  a  Number  of 
monthly  certificate  for  approximately  640  institutions,  the  State  Board  wfthhefd?8 
withheld  a  total  of  38  certificates  on  18  institutions  in  1910,  19  certifi- 
cates on  9  institutions  in  1911,  26  certificates  on  13  institutions  in  1912, 
36  certificates  on  20  institutions  in  1913,  22  certificates  on  16  institutions 
in  1914.  When  the  City's  investigating  activities  became  fully  apparent 
in  1915,  50  certificates  on  37  institutions  were  withheld  by  the  State 
Board.  The  Board  had  withheld  the  certificate  as  to  only  8  out  of  the  24 
institutions  on  the  controverted  list  prior  to  the  city's  investigation.  The 
President  of  the  board  explained  that  in  the  last  three  months  they 
had  held  up  more  certificates  in  "the  desire  to  strengthen  our  case".  I 
have  already  pointed  out  that  the  evidence  shows  that  the  State  Board 
regarded  the  withholding  of  this  certificate  as  its  most  potent  agency  for 
reform. 

The  board  has  never  once  resorted  to  its  power  under  the  State  NoAppiica- 

„.,        .   .        T  11-  •  tion  for  Court 

Charities  Law  to  issue  an  order  upon  court  approval  directed  to  an  msti-  Order, 
tution  when,  upon  an  investigation  of  an  institution,  it  appears  that  "in- 
adequate provision"  is  made  for  "a  condition  necessary  to  their  well- 
being"  (which  would  seem  to  cover  industrial  and  educational  training 
as  required  by  law).  The  State  Board  is  empowered  to  issue  this  order 
on  approval  of  the  Supreme  Court,  after  notice  to  the  institution  to  apply 
such  remedy  as  the  board  shall  specify  in  the  order.  Disobedience  of 
such  order  is  a  misdemeanor.  The  ooard  seems  to  have  assumed  that 
such  order  should  issue  only  in  some  extraordinary  and  almost  unheard 
of  case,  and  that  the  court  would  not  approve  such  order  except  in  an  ex- 
treme case.  But  the  board  has  never  applied  for  such  order  and  does  not 
know  what  the  court  would  approve.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any  justice 


118 

of  the  court  would  venture  to  reject  approval  of  an  .administrative  order 
proposed  by  a  competent  State  Board  and  designed  to  promote  the  wel- 
fare of  these  helpless  wards  of  society. 

Even  in  a  case  where  cruel  and  inhuman  punishment  in  the  form  of 
shackles  and  chains  was  discovered  by  the  State  Board  in  an  investiga- 
tion of  a  private  institution  in  Westchester  County  in  1895,  the  order  was 
not  issued  and  not  even  was  the  certificate  withheld,  as  far  as  the  record 
shows.  The  institution  remained  open  and  similar  conditions,  such  as 
confining  children  in  small  wooden  cages,  whence  escape  in  case  of  fire 
would  have  been  difficult,  were  discovered  by  the  board  in  1905.  Even 
after  the  special  investigation  by  the  board  in  1905,  rough  corporal  pun- 
ishment was  inflicted  and  an  inspector  so  reported  to  the  State  Board. 
For  years  the  board's  reports  called  attention  to  inadequate  food,  insuffi- 
cient fire  protection  and  inadequate  bathing  facilities,  and  still  there  was 
no  application  for  an  order  and  there  was  no  withholding  of  a  certifi- 
cate, so  far  as  appears,  unless  it  was  in  1905  when  the  board  was  making 
its  second  special  investigation.  The  board  carefully  and  deliberately 
refrained  from  making  public  its  adverse  reports.  The  institution  finally 
voluntarily  closed  its  doors  three  years  later.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
there  were  distinct  improvements  in  this  institution  during  these  thirteen 
years,  some  of  which  may  be  attributable  to  the  patience  and  kindly 
advice  of  the  State  Board.  But  no  one  can  read  the  account  without 
realizing  that  the  board  lamentably  failed  to  exercise  the  power  it 
possessed  to  end  these  abuses  at  once. 

The  State  Board  having  never  applied  for  a  court  order,  only  once  in 
21  years  having  affirmatively  certified  that  an  institution  was  not  com- 
plying with  its  rules,  thus  electing  to  ignore  violations  of  the  statute  and 
rules  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  sufficiently  serious  to  justify  such 
certificate,  and  having  also  rarely  withheld  the  certificate  of  compliance 
showing  that  it  was  satisfied  with  the  institution's  statement  that  it 
had  complied,  the  question  naturally  arises,  what  did  the  State  Board 
do  to  enforce  compliance?  The  very  fact  that  it  did  anything  would 
seem  to  negative  its  contention  that  it  was  charged  only  with  the  duty 
of  a  supervisory  inspection.  To  say  that  anything  beyond  that  was  self- 
imposed  is,  to  my  mind,  only  another  way  of  saying  that  the  board  itself,, 
beginning  in  1895,  recognized,  if  it  did  not  discharge,  the  obligations  im- 
posed upon  it  by  law. 


119 

It  sent  its  reports  of  inspection  to  the  boards  of  managers.  They  con-  Reports  and 
tained  many  criticisms  by  a  band  of  inspectors,  as  to  qualifications  com- 
petent, as  to  numbers  woefully  deficient.  There  was  a  table  of  "Needs 
and  Defects"  in  each  report.  But  important  critcisms  contained  in  the 
body  of  the  report  were  often  not  included  in  the  list  of  "Needs  and 
Defects".  This  in  and  of  itself  was  not  calculated  to  impress  the  man- 
agers. A  number  of  "Needs  and  Defects"  were  carried  in  the  reports 
from  'year  to  year  in  precisely  the  same  language.  This  also  was  not  a 
particularly  incisive  method  of  getting  the  managers  to  take  notice.  It 
wrote  letters.  It  has  several  forms,  printed  or  partly  printed,  to  fit 
various  sets  of  circumstances.  Sometimes  the  form  letter  contained  the 
statement  that  the  report  was  "transmitted  to  the  managers  in  the  belief 
that  the  indication  of  any  defect  would  assure  remedial  action",  and  that 
"it  is  transmitted  by  way  of  information  and  suggestion  and  with  the 
hope  that  it  will  be  of  interest  and  service".  But  when  an  institution  had 
the  lowest  rating,  the  managers  were  respectfully  requested  to  consider 
the  report  at  their  next  meeting  and  promptly  to  advise  the  State  Board 
of  their  action  to  remedy  the  defects.  The  President  and  Secretary  in 
numberless  instances  followed  this  up  by  more  letters  in  cases  where  insti- 
tutions did  not  respond  satisfactorily.  Sometimes  improvements  were 
secured ;  sometimes,  as  I  have  said,  the  same  list  of  "Needs  and  Defects" 
persisted  in  the  reports  year  after  year. 

The  board  adopted  a  system  of  ratings  for  plant  and  for  management,  Ratings, 
calculated  to  stimulate  the  institutions  and  to  serve  as  a  guide  in  determin- 
ing upon  the  form  of  letter  to  be  used  or  whether  the  certificate  should 
issue.  So  far  as  the  institutions  are  concerned,  the  principle  of  the  rat- 
ings was  the  same  as  a  merit  card  in  school.  There  is  evidence  that  some 
institutions  were  affected  by  it. 

The  board  early  adopted  one  policy  to  which  it  has  always  given  strict  Never  Resorts 
adherence — never  to  resort  to  publicity  to  end  abuses  or  promote  reforms  tc 
in  an  institution.     In  1905,  after  the  institution  in  Westchester  County 
to  which  I  have  referred  had  been  twice  within  ten  years  formally  re- 
ported to  and  by  the  State  Board  as  inflicting  brutal  punishment  upon 
children,  it  appears  that  the  last  report  had  found  its  way  into  the  news- 
papers, and  Secretary  Hebberd  wrote  the  managers  in  an  apologetic  vein, 
explaining  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  State  Board  to  make  it 
public,  that,  so  far  as  he  could  learn,  no  one  representing  the  board  had 


120 

made  it  public,  and  that  he  had  been  informed  that  one  of  the  local  man- 
agers had  given  it  out. 

Mr.  Hebberd  said  before  a  committee  of  the  last  constitutional  con- 
vention that  "seldom  will  one  hear  any  criticism  of  any  of  these  institu- 
tions has  been  made  public  by  the  State  Board".  Mr.  Gratwick,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  State  Board,  testified  that  his  "fundamental  proposition  is  to 
keep  things  out  of  the  newspapers".  The  President  of  the  State  Board 
testified  that  '^pitiless  publicity  is  the  last  weapon  that  a  state  department 
ought  to  resort  to.  *  *  *  I  do  not  believe  in  publicity  as  a  remedy 
to  correct  an  evil ;  I  believe  in  taking  managers  of  an  institution  into  your 
confidence  and  going  over  the  situation  with  them.  I  am  a  conservative 
in  supervision".  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Devine  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  New  York  newspapers  cover  Bellevue  Hospital  as  a  matter 
of  routine,  and  the  result  is  quick  correction  of  abuses,  if  any. 

Mr.  Choate,  in  an  argument  before  a  senate  committee  at  Albany, 
was  speaking  of  grave  abuses  which  had  arisen  in  a  New  York  State 
public  institution  and  said  that  there  should  be  an  investigating  body 
which  "shall  let  the  full  sunlight  of  day  into  them  and  fearlessly  make 
public  what  they  see  there,  whether  officers  are  pleased  or  displeased". 
He  went  on  to  say  that  it  was  generally  sufficient  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  managers  to  faults,  but  when  that  was  not  sufficient,  then  it  was  "right 
and  proper  to  appeal  to  the  public  ear  and  the  public  conscience.  *  *  * 
Bring  them  to  the  attention  of  the  public  through  the  press,  which  will 
command  in  such  cases,  necessarily  and  inevitably,  the  cure  of  grievances 
of  this  sort,  however  long  they  may  have  been  neglected." 

Patient  persuasion  is  the  avowed  policy  of  the  State  Board.  Never 
go  to  court;  only  once  in  21  years  directly  interfere  with  commitments; 
rarely  delay  the  institution  in  getting  its  money  from  the  City;  never 
make  public  any  criticism  of  any  abuse.  Secretary  Hebberd  said:  "As 
soon  as  you  bring  anything  wrong  to  their  attention,  they  correct  it.  We 
try  to  persuade  them  that  our  view  is  right  and  sometimes  they  come 
around  to  it,  and  more  often  they  would  come  around  if  they  had  the 
money".  To  demonstrate  the  policy  of  the  State  Board  toward  the  insti- 
tutions, he  said  that  he  did  not  believe  that  ten  out  of  the  eight  hundred 
children's  institutions  would  come  out  and  say  that  the  inspection  of  the 
State  Board  had  not  worked  well.  Mr.  Mulry,  in  a  statement  made  some 
years  ago,  commented  upon  visitation  that  was  sometimes  unfriendly, 
engendering  prejudice  against  state  inspection,  and  added  that  "much 


121 

of  this  feeling  is  caused  by  misunderstanding  due  to  the  attempt  of  the 
inspector  to  pry  too  deeply  into  matters  of  no  concern  to  the  State  Board". 
Mr.  Mulry  did  not  explain  what  matters  were  of  no  concern  to  the 
State  Board.  If  he  referred  to  those  relating  exclusively  to  religious 
training,  he  was  of  course  quite  right.  The  concern  of  officialdom  in 
this  ends  with  the  commitment  of  the  child  to  the  institution  of  the 
religious  faith  of  the  parents,  unless  it  is  seen  that  public  funds  are  used 
for  religious  training,  which  is  forbidden  by  the  constitution.  Of  this  I 
have  seen  no  evidence. 

Under  the  State  Board's  method,  improvement  in  the  institutions  was  Rapidity  of 
usually  slow,  but  its  disposition  in  committee  meetings  of  the  inspectors'  Reports™ 
reports  and  the  fixing  of  ratings  was  unusually  rapid.  As  pointed 
out  by  counsel  for  the  City  department,  in  1914,  the  committee  - 
examined  613  reports  (each  consisting  of  many  pages)  in  750 
minutes,  or  one  in  every  1.22  minutes.  In  1915,  it  examined  544  reports 
in  775  minutes,  or  one  in  every  1.42  minutes.  Not  all  these  reports 
were  inspectors'  reports,  but  most  of  them  were;  and  other  matters,  in- 
cluding ratings  of  every  institution,  special  reports  and  letters  were  con- 
sidered within  this  period.  At  one  meeting,  in  October,  1914,  161  reports 
were  passed  on  in  a  session  of  120  minutes,  during  which  the  committee 
heard  Secretary  Hebberd  as  to  conditions  on  Randall's  Island.  Every 
report  was  separately  considered.  In  pointing  out  these  things,  I  do  not 
mean  to  condemn,  or  even  criticise,  the  faithful  members  of  this  com- 
mittee. They  were  unpaid  men  and  did  perhaps  all  that  they  could 
reasonably  have  been  expected  to  do  in  passing  upon  inspectors'  reports. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  the  chief  inspector  and  his  staff  that 
are  really  rating  the  institutions  in  the  long  run.  In  view  of  the  time 
given  to  this  by  the  committee  of  the  board,  it  is  humanly  impossible  for 
it  to  be  otherwise.  Is  it  any  wonder  that,  under  such  a  system,  there 
came  to  be  such  persistent  carrying  from  year  to  year  of  the  same  list 
of  "Needs  and  Defects"  and  the  use  of  so  many  printed  form  letters 
in  the  "follow-up"  by  the  board?  If  my  recommendation  for  a  State 
Board  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children  is  adopted,  there  should  be  more 
opportunity  for  what  may  be  called  overhead  inspection  and  rating  than 
the  present  system  affords. 

We  have  seen  what  are  the  methods  of  the  State  Board  in  enforcing  Methods 
its  recommendations.    They  may  be  contrasted  with  those  of  the  Depart-  Department, 
ment  of  Public  Charities. 


122 

(1)  The  Department  sent  the  reports  of  the  advisory  committee  to 
superintendents  as  well  as  to  the  managers  of  each  of  the  affected  institu- 
tions (the  State  Board  sends  only  to  the  managers).     Some  of  the  insti- 
tutions  immediately   responded    favorably   to   suggestions    for   improve- 
ment.   Some  did  not.    Many  were  obviously  resentful  over  the  criticisms. 
These  criticisms  were  more  numerous  than  any  to  which  the  institutions 
had  been  accustomed  and  were  put  in  a  different  way.   Some  of  them  seem 
unreasonable  and  unjust.     Some  of  the  ratings  were  lower  than  they 
should  have  been.    On  the  whole,  there  was  a  favorable  response.    There 
was  nothing  in  the  tone  of  the  Department's  communications  to  give 
basis  for  the  hope  that  the  recommendations   and  suggestions   for  im- 
provements would  be  carried  along  perfunctorily  from  year  to  year.    Mr. 
Doherty  testified  that:    "In  one  institution  we   strongly  directed  it  to 
abolish  immediately  the  deplorable  practice  of  exacting  cheap  labor  from 
a  group  of  defenseless  girls  14  years  of  age  and  over,  who  were  found 
rendering  from  eight  to  nine  hours  of  hard  service  with  no  compensa- 
tion."   The  institution  has  abandoned  this.     In  many  of  the  institutions 
the  improvements  have  been  marked.    The  shock  of  the  City's  inspection 
and  its  follow-up  have  already  galvanized  the  institutions  into  doing  some 
things   recommended   and   urged  by  the   State   Board   for   years,   some 
things  contemplated  by  the  institution  managers  themselves,  but  long  de- 
layed, and  some  things  required  by  the  City. 

(2)  It  sent  the  reports  to  the  State  Board.     The  board  began  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  inspections  in  both  public  and  private  institutions 
in  New  York  City  and  to  withhold  certificates  of  compliance  with  its 
rules  more  freely  than  it  ever  had  and  for  reasons  which  it  had  been 
ignoring  for  years,  the  President,  as  I  have  said,  admitting  that  the  board 
did  this  "in  the  desire  to  strengthen  our  case". 

(3)  It  ceased  commitments  to  15  of  the  24  institutions,  and  at  the 
close  of  the  hearings  it  had  not  resumed  in  8  cases.     Ceasing  to  commit 
was  a  spur  to  institution  improvements  because  the  per  capita  cost  of 
maintenance  goes  up  as  the  number  of  inmates  goes  down. 

(4)  It  refused  in  some  cases  to  certify  the  monthly  bills  of  the  in- 
stitution against  the  City.     This  served  the  same  purpose. 

(5)  It  resorted  to  publicity  in  the  newspapers.     In  Mr.   Doherty's 
address  before  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  May,  1915,  some  of  the  re- 


123 

ports  containing  serious  criticisms  of  institutions  were  made  public.  In 
that  address,  Mr.  Doherty  apportioned  the  blame  for  conditions  among 
the  boards  of  managers,  the  Department  of  Public  Charities  and  the 
State  Board  of  Charities. 

(6)  It  issued  a  document  consisting  of  standards  for  inspectors, 
called  "The  Questionnaire". 

The  Commissioner  of  Public  Charities  made  liberal  exercise  of  his 
power  to  refuse  to  commit  to  many  of  the  institutions  on  the  contro- 
verted list,  acting  in  some  cases  on  the  reports  of  the  State  Board  in- 
spectors in  1914  and  before  making  any  independent  investigation.  This 
brought,  in  one  or  more  cases,  the  statement  from  the  institution  heads 
that  the  children  would  be  marched  to  the  City  Hall  steps.  Institutions, 
the  better  institutions  particularly,  were  crowded.  Children  had  to  be 
committed  somewhere,  and  to  institutions  of  the  religious  faith  of  the 
parents.  This  may  be  regarded  as  the  explanation  of  the  failure  of  the 
department  to  call  upon  the  comptroller  to  suspend  the  monthly  per  capita 
payments  to  the  institutions.  Sudden  and  drastic  action  leading  to  the 
closing  of  institutions  would  have  been,  under  the  circumstances,  inex- 
pedient and  unwise.  The  treatment  that  was  necessary  should  have  been 
carried  on  over  a  period  of  years.  A  judicious,  but  vigorous,  exercise 
of  the  power  of  the  State  Board  to  withhold  certificates  of  compliance 
would  not,  as  I  have  said,  have  resulted  in  the  closing  of  institutions.  The 
remedy  that  has  been  needed  and  has  not  been  applied  was  that  possessed 
by  the  State  Board  under  its  constitutional  rule-making  power,-  which  for 
many  years  had  been  so  little  used  that  in  1914  it  almost  might  be  said  to 
have  fallen  into  a  state  of  atrophy. 

It  is  my  view  that,  in  the  last  analysis,  the  City's  investigation  of  Value  of 
1914  and  1915,  over  and  above  all  the  resentments  that  have  been  aroused,  tigation. 
has  been  of  incalculable  value  to  the  children  in  the  institutions.  Evi- 
dences of  this  multiply.  The  State  Board  of  Charities  has  increased  its 
activities.  It  inspects  more  frequently.  The  reports  are  more  complete. 
The  ratings  are  more  nearly  commensurate  with  the  findings.  Certifi- 
cates are  more  frequently  withheld.  Important  improvements  have  been 
made  in  the  institutions  to  such  extent  that  the  State  Board  is  issuing  its 
certificates  of  compliance  to  all  the  institutions  on  the  controverted  list, 
with  at  least  tacit  approval  of  the  City.  The  Department  of  Public 
Chanties  has  organized  its  first  Bureau  for  Child  Placing.  The  Associa- 


124 


tion  of  Catholic  Charities  has  announced  that  it  would  "appoint  an 
auxiliary  to  follow  the  inspections  of  the  authorities  in  the  attacked  insti- 
tutions". At  a  great  meeting  on  April  30  last,  representatives  of  all  the 
great  religious  faiths  joined  in  advancing  the  cause  of  the  Big  Brother 
and  Big  Sister  societies  in  the  institutions.  Committees  of  representative 
citizens  have  been  formed  to  bring  about  a  better  understanding  between 
the  institutions  and  the  authorities,  State  and  City,  upon  the  subject  of 
inspection. 

But  it  is  also  my  view,  the  reasons  for  which  I  have  already  en- 
deavored to  set  forth,  that  under  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  we  may 
look,  and  must  continue  to  look,  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  with  its 
rule-making  power,  to  establish  and  enforce  reasonable  and  enlightened 
standards  for  the  private  institutions.  Its  duty  of  inspection  and  super- 
vision is  primary,  is  superior.  It  must  inspect.  The  City  may.  If  institu- 
tions with  their  self-perpetuating  boards  of  managers  are  left  without  a 
spur,  it  is  not  surprising  that  that  they  follow  the  easy  path,  that  they  are 
content  with  the  old  methods,  content  to  furnish  perhaps  the  best  of  bodily 
care  and  fail  to  grapple  with  the  more  difficult  questions  of  education  and 
training. 

What  counsel  called  "the  supervising  inspection"  of  the  State  Board 
has  failed — not  utterly  but  so  palpably  that  a  new  kind  of  inspection  is 
demanded.  It  will  cost  money,  but  that  is  a  difficulty  and  not  an  in- 
superable objection. 

The  persistent  explanation  or  excuse  of  the  State  Board  throughout 
the  inquiry  for  failure  to  enforce  upon  the  institutions  full  and  reasonably 
prompt  observation  of  its  own  rules,  much  less  any  advance  in  standards, 
particularly  to  such  point  as  is  desired  by  the  City  administration,  was  that 
the  institutions  had  not  the  money,  that  the  City  will  not  give  it,  and  that 
to  close  the  institutions  would  leave  the  City  in  a  quandary.  First,  I 
find  no  case  where  withholding  a  certificate  has  actually  closed  an  institu- 
tion door  that  has  ever  been  open.  If  there  is  such  case,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  it  in  this  voluminous  record.  What  happens  is  that  the  improve- 
ments are  made  or  promised  and  the  certificate  issues.  Next,  in  case 
the  State  Board  enforces  its  standards  as  it  should,  the  City  simply 
must  add  enough  to  the  other  income  of  the  institution  to  enable  it  to 
comply  with  the  rules  of  the  State  Board  or  else  see  the  institution  refuse 
City  charges.  The  point  is  that  the  State  Board  of  Charities  should 
zealously  perform  its  own  task,  make  desirable  advances  in  standards  by 


125 

amending  its  rules  and  then  construe  and  enforce  them,  remitting  to  the 
City  and  the  institutions  the  remainder  of  the  problem.  Many  of  the  im- 
provements suggested  both  by  the  State  Board  and  the  City  Committee 
could  obviously  be  made  with  little,  if  any,  additional  expense.  It  cer- 
tainly is  not  the  business  of  the  State  Board  to  find  money  or  children 
for  the  private  institutions,  or  to  find  institutional  homes  for  the  city's 
dependent  children.  The  State  of  New  York  has  deliberately  thrown  the 
care  of  dependent  children  upon  the  cities.  If  the  City  chooses  to  aid 
private  institutions,  and  thus  escape  an  almost  prohibitive  expenditure 
for  public  institutions  or  the  adoption  of  the  policy  of  exclusive  placing- 
out,  which  would  be  unwise  and  impractical,  then  the  State  Board  must 
fix  the  standards  and  the  City  and  the  institutions  must  pay  the  price. 
The  statement  was  made  by  counsel  for  the  State  Board  that  that  board 
had  no  function  to  determine  upon  how  high  a  plane  the  institutions 
should  be  run.  I  differ.  This  is  precisely  what  the  function  of  the  State 
Board  is.  The  board  itself  recognized  it  momentarily  in  the  letter  of 
Secretary  Hebberd  to  Comptroller  Prendergast  in  1912 : 

"In  the  instances  where  the  per  capita  cost  approximates  the 
amount  paid  by  the  City,  the  Board's  reports  of  inspection  show 
that  a  desirable  standardizing  of  the  dietary  and  the  scholastic 
education  of  the  inmates  would  as  a  rule  cause  a  considerable 
increase  in  their  cost  of  maintenance,  as  well  as  in  that  of  many 
of  the  other  institutions  also.  This  standardizing  is  at  present 
impossible  owing  to  a  lack  of  means,  but  is  something  which  the 
Board  must  undertake  to  bring  about  in  the  relatively  near  future" 

This  "relatively  near  future"  is  still  to  come. 

As  I  have  said,  this  letter  apparently  had  much  to  do  in  obtaining  The  City's 
from  the  City  higher  per  capita  payments  to  the  institutions.     These  theaCost. 
are  now  $2.50  per  week  in  the  congregate  institution  and  $3.00  in  the 
cottage  institution.     These  payments  evidently  should  be  more,  although 
it  is  conceded  that  the  City  should  never  pay  all  the  cost  of  maintenance. 
This  would  defeat  the  whole  notion  back  of  the  "New  York  system". 
The  additional  sum  of  $15  per  annum  per  capita  is  paid  for  education 
to  such  institutions  as  furnish  it  within  their  own  doors.     It  is  estimated 
that  it  costs  the  City  $40.24  per  annum  per  capita  in  the  public  elementary 
day  schools  for  instruction  and  educational  supplies  only. 


126 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  children  in  an  institu- 
tion usually  results  in  a  lower  per  capita  cost,  there  is  no  doubt  that  man- 
agers of  some  of  the  poorer  institutions  did  not  discourage  commitments. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  before  me  that  would  justify  the 
statement  that  "there  is  a  scramble  for  children". 

Counsel  for  the  State  Board  estimates  that  it  would  cost  the 
City  each  year  from  two  to  three  million  dollars  more  per  annum 
than  it  now  does  to  care  for  these  dependent  children  in  the  insti- 
tutions on  the  lines  adopted  at  the  institutions  of  which  Dr. 
Reeder  and  Dr.  Bernstein  are  superintendents.  Even  if  this  be  true, 
I  repeat  that  it  is  not  the  real  concern  of  the  State  Board.  While 
the  change  from  congregate  to  cottage  institutions,  repairs  to  plant, 
improved  bathing  facilities  and  dining  room  service  are  important  and  de- 
sirable, it  is  apparent  to  me  that  the  real  needs  of  many  of  the  institutions 
are  good  and  sufficient  food,  adequate  equipment  for  indoor  and  outdoor 
play,  and  efficient  scholastic,  vocational  and  industrial  training.  Dr.  Bern- 
stein estimated  that  adequate  social  and  recreational  facilities  and  equip- 
ment for  vocational  training  and  competent  instructors  would  cost  $1,000 
initial  outlay  and  $800  per  annum  thereafter  in  an  institution  of  200 
children,  and  $2,400  initial  outlay  and  $1,680  per  annum  thereafter  in 
an  institution  of  450  children.  These  sums  are  certainly  not  out  of 
reach  for  many  of  the  institutions. 

I  do  not  share  the  aversion  with  which  the  State  Board  shrinks  from 
publicity  as  a  method  of  enforcement  of  its  recommendations  to  end 
abuses.  I  cannot  comprehend  it.  Publicity,  in  the  relation  between  a 
state  department  and  a  private  institution  holding  any  religious  faith 
is  essential.  This  is  one  of  the  few  instances  where  church  and  state 
come  into  contact.  In  this  country,  there  may  not  be  permitted  to 
grow  up  any  subservience  of  the  state  to  the  church.  I  concur  in  the 
view  that  the  state  must  always  dominate  the  partnership  between  it  and 
the  private  institutions.  It  has  been  too  long  a  silent  partner — as  repre- 
sented by  the  City,  this  has  been  deliberate;  as  represented  by  the  State 
Board,  it  seems  to  be  a  result  of  contentment  with  an  inspection  force 
utterly  inadequate  as  to  numbers,  a  system  of  follow-up  or  enforcement 
that  failed  to  embrace  features  that  would  have  promptly  energized  the 
institutions  and  their  friends  into  the  making  of  essential  improvements, 
and  of  a  timidity  in  advancing  its  rules  and  standards  for  care  and  train- 
ing to  meet  its  own  ideals,  fearing  it  was  too  much  to  ask  of  the  institu- 


127 

tion  and  that  the  City  would  be  placed  in  a  quandary,  instead  of  fulfilling 
its  own  mission  to  the  best  of  its  ability  and  to  the  extent  of  its  power 
confident  that  a  way  would  be  found  by  the  others.  As  was  said  in  the 
report  of  the  White  House  Conference : 

"Child  caring  agencies,  whether  supported  by  public  or  private 
funds,  should  by  all  legitimate  means  press  for  adequate  financial 
support.  Inferior  methods  should  never  be  accepted  by  reason 
of  lack  of  funds  without  continuing  protest.  Cheap  care  of  chil- 
dren is  ultimately  enormously  expensive,  and  is  unworthy  of  a 
strong  community." 

State  Board  and  Hospitals  and  Dispensaries  in  New  York  City. 

On  September  30,  1915,  the  State  Board  of  Charities  was  super- 
vising in  the  state  of  New  York  185  hospitals  and  186  dispensaries. 
Of  the  latter,  130  were  in  New  York  City.  The  widespread  use  of  the 
dispensaries  is  shown  in  the  fact  that  in  1915  there  were  4,864,699  treat- 
ments given  therein,  of  which  all  but  213,582  were  in  New  York  City. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  dispensary  has  an  intimate  place  in  the  life  of  the 
poor. 

The  State  Board  has  the  power  to  license  dispensaries,  which  means 
the  power  to  fix  the  location  thereof,  the  power  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations for  their  operation,  the  power  to  visit,  inspect  and  supervise 
them,  and  the  power  to  revoke  their  licenses.  It  has  never  revoked 
such  a  license  and  Dr.  Smith,  chairman  of  the  board's  committee  on 
dispensaries,  thought  the  dispensaries  were  generally  regarded  with  favor 
by  the  medical  profession  and  that  for  the  board  to  enforce  its  rules 
would  be  too  severe  and  radical  and  more  likely  to  do  harm  than  good, 
so  it  never  attempts  it. 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Goldwater,  former  Commissioner  of  Public 
Health  in  New  York  City,  and  of  Dr.  Emerson,  the  present  Commis- 
sijoner,  Discloses  that  the  State  Board  has  signally  failed  to  adopt 
adequate  standards  for  the  inspection  of  hospitals  and  dispensaries,  and 
that  its  inspectors'  reports  are  superficial;  that  they  deal  carefully  and 
intelligently,  as  a  rule,  with  the  plant,  but  are  blind  to  the  more  technical 
requirements  that  make  for  medical  efficiency.  As  it  is,  one  physician 
in  a  dispensary  may  serve  fifty  patients  in  an  hour  and  there  would  be 
no  condemnation  of  the  practice.  Medical  men  would  be  preferable 


128 

for  this  class  of  inspection,  but  the  laymen  now  ^n  the  employ  of  the 
board  could  be  trained,  and  should  be  trained,  by  the  board, 
to  perform  this  work  satisfactorily.  The  difficulty  is  that  they 
are  without  adequate  standards.  The  State  Board  has  not  only  failed 
to  provide  such  standards  of  its  own,  but  has  neglected  to  avail  itself 
of  the  standards  prepared  by  the  Association  of  Clinics,  a  voluntary 
organization  of  the  better  dispensaries,  established  at  the  suggestion  of 
Dr.  Goldwater. 

The  State  Board  failed  to  ascertain  that  there  are  no  isolation  rooms 
for  contagious  cases  coming  to  the  dispensary.  The  Health  Commissioner 
of  New  York  received  a  State  Board  report  on  the  Willard  Parker  Hos- 
pital for  Contagious  Diseases.  It  described  the  plant  but  showed  a 
lack  of  knowledge  of  the  special  problems  relating  to  the  management 
of  contagious  hospitals.  The  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  was  asked 
for  something  better,  but  it  did  not  come.  The  State  Board  has  allowed 
too  many  dispensaries  in  a  given  locality,  which  suggests  the  absence  of  a 
comprehensive  program  in  acting  on  licenses. 

The  State  Board  has  ample  power  to  place  the  hospitals  and  dis- 
pensaries on  the  right  plane,  but  it  has  lacked  imagination,  has  acted,  as 
usual,  on  the  theory  that  not  all  can  be  done  in  a  day  and  that  the 
institutions  are  doing  the  best  they  can  with  the  means  at  hand  and  that 
the  board  ought  not  to  create  standards  to  maintain  which  means  the 
outlay  of  large  sums.  Yet  Dr.  Goldwater  showed  that  the  heads  of 
hospitals  and  dispensaries  are  extremely  sensitive  to  State  Board  ratings 
and  would  repsond  instantly  to  higher  standards,  and  that  money  would 
be  readily  obtainable  if  the  State  Board  would  condemn  the  dispensaries 
doing  poor  work  and  point  out  that  it  was  due,  at  least  in  part,  to 
inadequate  means. 

Commissioner  Kingsbury's  advisory  committee  devoted  its  invest- 
igation of  1914  and  1915  to  child-caring  institutions  and  inspected  only 
one  private  hospital,  the  Washington  Heights  Hospital,  in  December, 
1915.  The  inspectors  of  the  State  Board  had  visited  it  and  reported 
in  1912,  1913,  1914,  and  twice  in  1915.  The  State  Board 
had  withheld  the  certificate  of  compliance  with  its  rules  in  1912,  in 
1915,  and  again  in  1916.  The  reports,  both  of  the  State  Board  and  of 
the  City,  revealed  such  conditions  in  the  hospital  that  it  is  plain  all 
municipal  aid  should  have  been  withheld  from  it.  For  failure  to  cancel  the 
ambulance  service,  the  City  is  to  blame.  For  failure  to  issue  a  certificate 


129 

of  non-compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  State  Board,  or  to  withhold 
and  continue  to  withhold  the  certificate  of  compliance  or  to  apply  for 
a  court  order,  the  State  Board  is  to  blame.  Counsel  for  the  State  Board 
concedes  that  the  issuance  of  the  certificate  raised  a  close  question. 
It  is  a  question  that  was  wrongly  decided.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
I  am  writing  as  to  conditions  as  described  in  the  evidence  received  by  me. 

Infant  Mortality  in  Private  Foundling  or  Infant  Asylums. 

Foundling  asylums  were  organized  primarily  to  reduce  excessive  infant 
mortality  due  to  illegitimacy  and  abandonment  of  infants.  That  these 
asylums  must  be  continued  there  is  no  doubt.  The  asylum  will  be  needed 
for  the  defective,  the  syphilitic,. and  sometimes  for  the  actually  sick 
infant.  It  is  not  likely  that  suitable  foster  homes  can  be  found  for  all 
that  should  be  placed-out.  The  asylum  serves  as  a  known  place  of  refuge. 

But  there  is  likewise  no  doubt  that  the  mortality  rate  among  infants 
under  two  years  of  age  in  asylums  is  fearfully  out  of  proportion  to  the 
rate  among  such  children  in  the  state  at  large.  The  figures  show  that  in  the 
state  at  large  the  rate  for  1909-1913  was  87.4  per  thousand,  and  that  in 
eleven  large  infant  asylums  in  the  state  it  was  422.5  per  thousand,  or 
approximately  five  times  that  in  the  state  at  large.  After  all  allowance 
is  made  for  the  poor  condition  of  the  babies  upon  admission  to  institutions, 
it  is  still  evident  that  to  keep  an  infant  under  two  years  of  age  in  an 
institution  is  to  write  the  death  rate  in  large  figures.  This  is  demonstrated 
by  considering  the  rate  among  "born  in"  babies,  or  those  born  in  the 
asylum  with  mothers  remaining  with  them  at  least  for  a  time.  These 
babies  therefore  get  a  good  start,  as  is  shown  in  the  low  death  rate  during 
the  first  month,  and  yet  48  per  cent,  died  before  the  year  was  out. 

In  1914,  in  New  York  City  where  it  was  found  that  foster  mothers 
would  take  only  the  well  infants  from  the  asylums  for  boarding-out, 
an  experiment  was  made  by  the  City  Department  of  Health  in  connection 
with  an  outside  agency.  The  experiment  was  with  75  babies  of  the 
type  in  which  the  mortality  rate  had  been  100  per  cent.  These  babies 
were  taken  from  one  of  the  foundling  asylums  and  placed  out  in  foster 
homes  under  the  general  supervision  of  one  nurse,  with  emergency  atten- 
tion from  the  doctor  and  nurse  attached  to  the  nearest  milk  station. 
Of  these  75  babies  39  died  and  36  lived,  a  mortality  rate  of  52  per  cent, 
as  against  the  almost  inevitable  100  per  cent,  had  they  remained  in  the 
asylum. 


130 

• 

It  has  been  said  that  the  American  idea  of  caring  for  these  babies 
is  to  put  them  into  an  institution,  with  little  or  no  attempt  to  keep  mother 
and  child  together.  Figures  show  very  plainly  how  important  it  is  to 
keep  mother  and  child  together.  In  1913,  1738  babies  under  one  year 
were  admitted  into  one  of  the  foundling  asylums  in  New  York  City. 
Of  these  there  died  within  the  year  48  per  cent,  of  the  "born  in,"  45 
per  cent,  of  those  "committed"  by  the  City  Department  of  Charities, 
38  per  cent,  of  the  "foundlings"  or  those  abandoned  in  a  deserted  spot, 
59  per  cent,  of  the  "surrendered,"  or  those  abandoned  by  their  mothers 
on  arrival  at  the  asylum,  and  only  27  per  cent,  of  the  "accepted,"  those 
with  whom  the  mothers  remained. 

A  plan  for  state  supervision  of  these  infants  by  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  has  been  suggested  by  the  Speedwell  Country  Homes  Society. 
In  substance,  it  is  for  the  city  to  support  a  series  of  carefully  regulated 
units  for  the  intensive  care  of  dependent  infants  boarded  out  in  homes. 
The  plan  is  drawn  on  the  lines  of  family  life  with  individual  supervision 
of  a  doctor  and  nurse  never  to  lose  sight  of  the  case.  The  unit  is  a 
definite  suburban  locality.  The  plan  bears  no  analogy  to  the  discredited 
system  of  baby  farming.  The  cost  is  $1.15  per  child  per  day,  as  against 
an  average  daily  per  capita  cost  in  four  hospitals  in  New  York  City, 
dealing  principally  with  infants  and  little  children  of  $1.80.  The 
cost  of  caring  for  each  of  the  babies  that  I  have  said  were  taken  from 
one  of  the  infant  asylums  and  placed  out  by  the  City  Department  of 
Health  was  62  cents  per  day.  The  City  contributes  to  that  asylum  55 
cents  per  day  for  each  baby  committed  and  remits  taxation. 

It  is  true  that  the  asylums  place-out  large  numbers  of  infants  in 
permanent  and  in  boarding  homes,  sometimes  to  be  nursed  and  sometimes 
to  be  bottle-fed.  These  babies  go  to  the  remotest  corners  of  the  United 
States.  There  is  no  adequate  inspection.  There  is  no  definite  informa- 
tion as  to  mortality.  And  yet,  New  York  City  gave  to  one  foundling 
asylum  in  the  year  1913  the  sum  of  $26,162  to  recompense  it  for  super- 
vision of  these  placed-out  infants. 

The  plan  of  the  Speedwell  Society  has  been  commended  by  Dr. 
Smith,  member  of  the  State  Board,  who  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  insti- 
tutions for  infants  are  unnecessary  and  that  institutional  care  means 
neglect  of  the  special  wants  and  peculiarities  of  each  child.  But  I  find  no 
comprehensive  consideration  by  the  State  Board  itself  of  the  subject  of 
infant  mortality  in  institutions  throughout  the  state.  It  certainly  has 


131 

not  devised  any  plan  designed  to  reduce  the  number  of  surrenders  of 
infants  to  asylums  by  mothers  who  could  be  aided  to  care  for  their 
children  in  their  own  homes.  In  1905,  a  special  committee  of  the  board 
made  a  report  in  which  it  confirmed  the  duty  of  the  State  Board  to 
improve  the  work  of  these  infant  asylums  as  far  as  practicable. 

Consideration  of  methods  to  reduce  infant  mortality  in  private  found- 
ling asylums  throughout  the  state  will  be  one  of  the  functions  of  the 
new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children,  in  case  my  recommendation  to  estab- 
lish such  bureau  in  the  State  Board  of  Charities  is  adopted. 

I  consider  it  my  duty  to  say  that  the  New  York  City  Department  of 
Public  Charities  has  a  great  duty  to  perform  in  this  field.  From  the 
evidence  submitted  to  me  I  have  gained  the  distinct  impression  that  com- 
plete utilization  of  the  resources  of  the  City  would  lead  to  a  reduction 
in  the  number  of  commitments  of  infants,  and  that  much  can  be  done 
that  is  not  being  done  toward  keeping  mothers  and  babies  together;  that 
the  standards  for  boarding  homes  are  incomplete;  and  that  the  City 
Department  is  without  sufficient  information  to  enable  it  to  state  how 
many  of  the  "committed"  babies  are  kept  in  the  institution  and  how  many 
are  placed-out,  and  what  is  the  mortality  rate  of  each  class. 


132 

• 

CONCLUSIONS. 

Private  Institutions  in  New  York  City. 

The  conclusions  I  have  reached  as  to  the  charges  of  the  Department 
of  Public  Charities  of  the  City  of  New  York  against  the  State  Board  of 
Charities,  and  as  to  such  changes  in  the  law  and  administrative  procedure 
as  seem  to  me  desirable  with  respect  to  the  supervision  of  the  private 
institutions,  are  set  forth  in  the  immediately  preceding  pages  under  the 
headings  "State  Board  and  Private  Institutions  for  Children  in  New 
York  City,"  "State  Board  and  Hospitals  and  Dispensaries  in  New  York 
City,"  and  "Infant  Mortality  in  Private  Foundling  or  Infant  Asylums," 
and  need  not  be  repeated  here. 

Specific  recommendations  relating  to  supervision  of  private  institutions 
will  be  found  under  the  heading  "Recommendations"  at  the  end  of  this 
report. 

A  New  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children. 

It  is  evident  that  the  State  Board  of  Charities  as  now  organized  is 
unable  to  give  that  intensive  special  and  constant  consideration  to  this 
great  problem  that  the  welfare  of  society  demands.  The  imperative  need 
of  an  increase  in  the  inspection  staff  of  the  board,  the  development  of  new 
standards  of  child  care  in  the  institutions,  the  promotion  of  placing-out 
some  classes  of  children  in  family  homes,  the  creation  and  advancement  of 
new  measures  of  outdoor  relief  in  order  to  preserve  for  the  children  their 
natural  home,  the  persistent  stimulation,  by  publicity  and  otherwise,  of 
financial  support  for  the  institutions,  both  from  the  public  treasury  and 
the  private  benefactor — all  suggest  the  creation  within  the  board  of  a 
new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children,  whose  chairman  shall  be  a  member 
of  the  board  with  special  training  in  the  care  of  children  in  private  insti- 
tutions and  in  foster  homes.  To  this  bureau  would  be  assigned  also  special 
consideration  of  the  private  reformatories  for  delinquent  children. 

A  more  detailed  reference  to  this  bureau  will  be  found  under  the  head- 
ing "Recommendations". 


133 


Extension  of  the  Supervision  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  Over  All 
Charitable  Institutions,  Whether  or  Not  in  Receipt  of  Public  Aid. 

I  have  pointed  out  the  disaster  that  fell  upon  the  State  Board  and 
the  public  in  1900,  arising  out  of  the  interpretation  which  the  Court  of 
Appeals  felt  impelled  to  give  to  the  charities  section  of  the  constitution. 
I  refer  to  the  ruling  of  the  court  that  such  charitable  institutions  as  must 
submit,  under  the  constitution,  to  the  visitation  of  the  State  Board,  are 
those  that  in  some  form  or  to  some  extent  receive  public  moneys  for  the 
support  and  maintenance  of  indigent  persons.  With  all  respect,  I  cannot 
believe  that  this  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution. 
An  inspection  of  the  minutes  of  the  debates  at  the  last  constitutional  con- 
vention shows  that  I  am  supported  in  this  view  by  at  least  one  distin- 
guished leader  in  both  the  constitutional  conventions  of  1894  and  1915, 
the  Hon.  Louis  Marshall.  It  is  plain  that  the  effect  of  this  decision  has 
been  to  place  the  wrong  emphasis  on  the  purpose  of  visitation  and  inspec- 
tion, to  view  it  as  a  means  toward  prevention  of  waste  in  expenditure 
of  public  money  and  not  for  the  protection  of  a  defenseless  human  being 
against  abuse  or  neglect. 

A  recent  investigation  shows  that  there  are  in  New  York  City  alone 
600  private  institutions  ministering  to  dependent  persons  not  now  inspected 
by  the  State  Board,  that  should  be  and  would  be  if  it  had  not  been  for 
this  judicial  interpretation  of  the  constitution. 

It  is  admitted  by  those  who  are  satisfied  with  the  existing  interpreta- 
tion upon  the  visitorial  power  of  the  State  Board  that  the  legislature 
may  constitutionally  provide  such  other  method  of  supervision  as  to  it 
may  seem  appropriate,  and  various  suggestions  have  been  made,  such  as 
the  imposition  of  the  duty  of  visitation  upon  the  attorney-general;  but 
it  is  plain  to  me  that  the  only  appropriate  state  body  for  the  inspection  of 
private  institutions,  not  in  receipt  of  public  aid,  is  the  same  body  that 
inspects  private  institutions  that  are  in  receipt  of  public  aid.  Contem- 
poraneous inspection  of  one  set  of  institutions  by  one  state  body  with 
one  staff  of  inspectors,  and  of  the  other  set  of  institutions  by  another 
state  body  with  another  staff  of  inspectors,  would  be  a  species  of  adminis- 
trative folly  that  would  not  long  be  tolerated. 

Pending  the  adoption  of  a  constitution  that  will  make  indubitably 
clear  what  was  already  supposed  to  be  clear,  I  recommend  executive 
approval  of  any  wise,  constitutional  legislation  that  will  tend  to  extend 


134 

the  supervision  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  over  the  class  of  institu- 
tions to  which  I  have  referred ;  for  example,  by  requiring  written  reports 
to  the  State  Board  from  time  to  time,  so  that  at  least  the  number  of 
inmates  may  be  known ;  or  by  permitting  the  visitation  and  inspection  of 
charitable  institutions  and  societies  making  public  appeals  for  funds.  The 
constitutionality  of  even  such  legislation  may  be  doubted,  but  it  should 
be  tried  out.  A  private  charity  is  a  public  trust  and  should  be  amenable 
to  reasonable  state  supervision. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  Reformatories  for  Adult  Women. 

In  view  of  the  constitutional  provisions  to  the  effect  that  the  reforma- 
tories for  the  confinement  of  adult  males  convicted  of  felony  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  visitation  of  the  State  Commission  of  Prisons,  and  that  the 
other  reformatories  shall  be  subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  State  Board 
of  Charities,  there  cannot,  of  course,  be  a  different  assignment  by  legis- 
lative enactment.  I  think,  however,  that  I  should  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  predominant  view  in  the  record  before  me  is  that  prisons 
generally  should  partake  more  of  the  nature  of  reformatory  institutions ; 
that  in  time  many  of  the  distinctions  between  penal  institutions  that  are 
called  prisons  and  penal  institutions  that  are  called  reformatories  will  dis- 
appear; for  example,  that  the  institution  at  Great  Meadow  called  a  prison 
is  as  much  a  reformatory  as  the  institution  at  Elmira,  called  a  reformatory ; 
that  there  is  now  no  logical  reason  why,  in  this  state,  reformatories  for 
adult  males  convicted  of  felony  should  be  within  the  prison  group,  subject 
to  the  visitation  of  the  Prison  Commission,  and  reformatories  for  adult 
females,  convicted  of  felony,  should  be  within  the  charitable  group  and 
subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  If  these 
reformatories  for  adult  women  should  eventually  find  their  way  into  the 
prison  group,  which  perhaps  is  the  more  logical,  the  local  boards  of  man- 
agers for  such  reformatories  should  be  retained,  with  power  to  select 
or  nominate  local  superintendents. 

State  Care  for  Adult  Female  Delinquents. 

All  adult  male  delinquents  or  violators  of  the  penal  law  are  cared 
for  in  public  institutions.  The  same  provision  should  be  made  for  adult 
female  delinquents  who  have  committed  infractions  of  the  penal  law 


135 

of  the  state.  There  are  two  state  institutions  for  such  women,  the 
New  York  State  Reformatory  for  Women  at  Bedford  Hills  and  the 
Western  House  of  Refuge  for  Women  at  Albion.  There  are  several 
private  institutions  to  which  such  women  are  committed  by  the  courts. 
None  of  them  possesses  such  facilities  for  scholastic,  industrial  and 
vocational  training  and  for  farm  and  garden  work,  most  desirable  for 
this  class,  as  are  afforded  at  the  state  institutions.  The  state  institutions 
are  constructed  on  the  cottage  plan,  and  the  private  institutions  are  all 
of  the  congregate  type,  in  which  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  classify  and 
segregate  the  different  classes  of  inmates.  The  most  scrupulous  care  is 
observed  at  the  state  institutions  to  provide  religious  training  and  observ- 
ances to  fulfil  the  desires  of  those  of  the  several  religious  faiths.  I 
recommend  the  repeal  of  the  laws  which  authorize  commitments  of 
such  offenders  to  private  institutions.  The  State  Board  of  Charities,  in 
accord  with  this  policy,  refuses  to  approve  the  incorporation  of  new 
institutions,  or  extensions  of  corporate  rights  of  existing  institutions,  of 
this  character. 

A  New  Institution  for  Defective  Delinquents. 

I  join  in  the  recommendation  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and 
of  the  recent  special  Commission  to  Investigate  Provision  for  the  Mentally 
Deficient,  of  which  Mr.  Hebberd  was  the  chairman,  that  the  state  shall 
at  once  provide  a  new  institution  for  the  care  and  treatment  of  the 
deficient  delinquent.  There  is  now  no  institution  of  this  kind  in  this 
state.  The  defective  is  a  constant  menace  to  the  discipline  and  training 
in  the  reformatories,  and  the  delinquent  furnishes  a  similar  problem  in 
the  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded.  Massachusetts  has  provided  that 
defective  delinquents  shall  be  cared  for  in  "departments  for  defective 
delinquents."  The  board  of  managers  of  the  New  York  State  Training 
School  for  Girls  at  Hudson^  in  their  last  annual  report,  make  clear 
that  the  existing  situation  is  serious.  They  state : 

"The  feeble-minded  girl  is  still  a  grave  problem  to  which  we 
give  much  particular  attention.  In  fact,  the  School  has  been  forced 
to  continue  a  large  amount  of  clearing-house  work,  which  divides 
the  attention  that  otherwise  would  come  wholly  to  the  normal 
girls,  for  whom  the  School  is  established.  *  *  *  The  care 
of  this  subnormal  class  should  be  the  work  of  another  institution, 


136 

« 

and  the  plan  for  the  State  to  establish  institutions  suited  to  such 
custodial  work,  has  the  earnest  approval  of  the  officials  of  this 
School,  who  have  been  obliged  to  study  the  mentality  of  the  girls 
committed  here.  *  *  *  It  is  also  very  important  in  this  connection 
to  note  that  this  School  has  actually  become  at  the  present  time 
both  a  School  and  a  Clearing  House,  although  equipped  and 
officered  only  for  a  School.  It  is  impossible  to  continue  this  pace 
of  work  and  double  duty  with  only  the  present  staff.  It  is  beyond 
human  endurance.  Neither  side  of  the  work  can  be  satisfactorily 
and  completely  accomplished,  and  the  less  insistent,  namely  the 
School,  is  likely  to  suffer  more  for  several  reasons — one  of  which 
is  that  the  type  of  officer  suited  to  School  work  is  not  necessarily 
fitted  for  or  desirous  of  doing  Clearing  House  work." 

This  new  institution,  if  and  when  authorized,  should  be  included 
with  the  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded  as  within  the  special  purview 
of  the  new  Bureau  of  Mental  Deficiency  which  I  suggest. 


A  New  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency. 

Mental  deficiency  is  to-day  perhaps  the  greatest  social  problem  that 
confronts  the  state.  It  will  not  be  expected  that  in  this  report  there  shall 
be  found  an  extended  analysis  of  the  social  consequences  of  mental 
deficiency.  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  perhaps  20  to  30  per  cent, 
of  the  inmates  in  correctional  institutions  in  New  York  are  mentally 
deficient;  that  a  large  proportion  of  prostitutes  in  hospitals  and  institu- 
tions is  mentally  deficient;  that  a  large  proportion  of  adult  criminals, 
how  large  is  not  known,  is  mentally  deficient;  that  the  discipline  of  all 
institutions  wherein  the  defective  mingles  with  the  deficient  and  the 
dependent  is  thereby  weakened  and  made  difficult;  that  the  orderly 
processes  of  education  in  the  public  schools  are  affected  by  the  presence 
of  defectives;  that  the  courts,  unequipped  with  an  adequate  system  of 
clearing  houses  and  testing  bureaus,  are  unable  to  administer  justice  and 
necessarily  make  improvident  and  unlawful  commitments;  that  crimi- 
nality and  dependency  might  be  lessened  if  adequate  attention  were  given 
to  mental  deficiency  in  children,  which  can  be  detected  at  an  early  age; 
that  mental  deficiency  underlies  many  cases  of  alcoholism  and  addiction  to 
drugs;  that  the  presence  in  a  community  of  the  mentally  defective, 


137 

peculiarly  lacking  in  sex  control,  is  a  source  of  widespread  specific  disease 
and  of  moral  contamination  and  reproduction  in  kind.  A  learned  com- 
mittee of  the  National  Psychiatric  Society,  Dr.  Thomas  W.  Salmon,  Dr. 
L.  Pierce  Clark  and  Dr.  Charles  L,.  Dana,  rendered  a  report  to  the  society 
in  1915  which  fully  substantiates  the  foregoing.  Dismay  is  aroused  by 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Walter  E.  Fernald,  of  Massachusetts,  that  "there  are 
reasons  for  believing  that  feeble-mindedness  is  on  the  increase,  that  it 
has  leaped  its  barriers."  He  also  points  out  that  "the  only  feeble-minded 
persons  who  now  receive  any  official  consideration  are  those  who  have 
already  become  dependent  or  delinquent,  many  of  whom  have  already 
become  parents.  We  lock  the  barn  door  after  the  horse  is  stolen." 

There  is  an  impression,  which  has  received  official  support,  that  the  New  York's 
state  of  New  York  leads  the  states  of  the  Union  in  providing  institutional 


care  for  mental  defectives  as  distinguished  from  the  insane.  This  is  not  Defectives. 
true.  At  no  time  during  the  last  fifteen  years  has  New  York  stood  first. 
Massachusetts  occupies  this  position  and  is  the  state  that  conies  nearest 
to  making  provision  for  all  the  mentally  defective  needing  institutional 
care,  or  even  for  those  for  whom  admission  is  sought.  On  the  figures 
for  January  1,  1916,  New  York  was  13th  in  its  provision  for  the  feeble- 
minded, and  5th  in  its  provision  for  epileptics.  If  the  state  of  New 
York  is  to  receive  credit  for  what  is  not  its  due,  and  the  capacity  of 
the  New  York  City  institution  on  Randall's  Island  is  added  to  the  state 
quota,  New  York  would  still  rank  5th  in  its  care  for  the  feeble-minded. 

The  National  Commission  for  Mental  Hygiene  has  prepared  exhibits 
for  me  which  show  that  the  provision  by  the  state  of  New  York  for  men- 
tal defectives  grew  more  slowly  during  the  period  between  1910  and  1915 
than  it  did  between  1905  and  1910.  The  rate  of  increase  in  the  ratio 
that  the  number  of  mental  defectives  provided  for  throughout  the  United 
States  bears  to  the  population  was  about  the  same  from  1910  to  1916  as 
it  was  from  1904  to  1910.  The  provision  in  the  state  of  New  York, 
however,  increased  42  per  cent,  from  1904  to  1910,  and  only  29  per  cent. 
from  1910  to  1916.  The  President  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  testi- 
fied before  me  that  the  number  of  feeble-minded  in  New  York  is  growing 
more  rapidly  than  is  the  capacity  of  the  institutions.  A  sharp  contrast  to 
this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  state  of  New  York  leads  all  the  states 
in  provision  for  the  insane. 

The  magnitude  of  the  problem  of  mental  deficiency  will  perhaps  be  The  Number 
more  generally  appreciated  when  it  is  understood  that  there  are  approxi-  Defw§veS. 


138 

mately  as  many  mental  defectives  in  the  state,  including  the  idiot,  the 
feeble-minded  and  the  moron,  as  there  are  insane  that  are  receiving 
state  hospital  care.  There  are  approximately  34,000  insane  under  care  in 
state  hospitals.  The  figures  as  to  the  mentally  defective  vary,  but  it  is 
reasonably  accurate  to  say  that  there  are  5,000,  excluding  epileptics,  in 
state  and  New  York  City  institutions,  all  of  which  are  filled  to  present 
capacity ;  6,000  in  institutions  where  they  should  not  be,  such  as  hospitals 
and  almshouses,  and  22,000  at  large ;  a  total  of  33,000.  It  has  been  said 
that  there  are  33,000  who  are  receiving  or  who  should  receive  custodial 
care,  and  an  untold  number  more  who  should  be  registered  and  under 
observation. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  is  the  only  body  in  the  state  upon  which, 
under  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  responsibility  for  state  supervision 
of  the  mentally  defective  in  institutions  has  been  imposed,  and  to  which 
the  people  may  turn  for  leadership  in  formulating  a  broad,  constructive 
policy,  not  only  for  commensurate  institutional  development,  but  for 
adequate  supervision  in  the  community.  Fifty  per  cent,  of  the  inmates 
in  state  institutions  supervised  by  the  State  Board  are  feeble-minded  or 
epileptic.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  singular  views  of  the  State 
Board  with  respect  to  important  institutional  problems,  and  its  approval 
of  an  unwise  and  unfair  geographical  grouping  of  institutions  for  the 
feeble-minded.  Furthermore,  the  proportion  of  New  York  City  inmates 
in  state  institutions  for  mental  defectives  is  36.2  per  cent. ;  yet  it  pays 
approximately  70  per  cent,  of  the  taxation  for  such  purposes.  The  State 
Board  has  failed  utterly,  whatever  may  have  been  its  efforts,  to  obtain 
appropriations  adequate  to  put  New  York  above  the  13th  place  among 
the  states  in  provision  for  the  mental  defective,  one  consequence  of  which 
is  that  the  mental  defective  is  found  in  nearly  all  the  almshouses  of  the 
state.  One  member  of  the  State  Board,  a  member  of  its  committee  on 
feeble-minded,  seemed  to  hold  the  view  that  care  should  be  taken  by  the 
board  to  discover  if  the  feeble-minded  were  not  being  quartered  on  the 
state  by  the  overseers  of  the  poor  instead  of  being  cared  for  in  the  county 
institutions.  Public  sentiment  years  ago  would  not  tolerate  retention  of 
the  insane  in  county  institutions. 

The  functions  of  the  several  state  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded 
are  not  clearly  defined  and  their  labors  are  not  coordinated.  The  super- 
intendents and  boards  of  managers  of  these  institutions  fail  to  look  to 
the  State  Board  for  leadership.  Each  pursues  its  own  way  with  no 


139 

opportunity  or  responsibility  for  considering  what  would  be  best  for  the 
state  at  large.  The  recent  law  for  the  commitment  and  retention  of  the 
feeble-minded  was  passed  without  the  aid  of  the  State  Board.  No 
attempt  has  been  made  by  the  State  Board,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able 
to  discover,  to  safeguard  and  supervise  the  feeble-minded  in  the  com- 
munity at  large.  The  State  Board,  as  at  present  constituted,  is  without 
a  psychiatrist  in  its  membership  or  a  member  who  has  had  personal 
institutional  experience  with  mental  defectives.  Moreover,  it  has  many 
other  varied  and  unrelated  functions. 

The  reasons  which  actuated  the  special  gubernatorial  commission  in  Reasons  for  a 
1872  in  recommending  the  appointment  of  a  Commissioner  in  Lunacy,  dependent  n~ 
and    for   the   adoption   of   that   recommendation,   exist   to-day    for   the  forPIuper-nt 

c  •    *  «    •      <  •    •  1   vision  of  the 

creation  ot  a  special  and  independent  department  for  the  visitation  and  Feebleminded, 
supervision  of  the  feeble-minded  in  the  institutions  and  in  the  com- 
munity. This  is,  in  substance,  the  view  of  a  present  member  of  the  State 
Board's  committee  on  feeble-minded.  At  first  the  Commissioner  in 
Lunacy  was  an  ex  officio  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  He 
characterized  his  work  as  "a  special  office  for  a  special  field".  The  State 
Board  retained  its  right  of  visitation,  and  in  1889  its  committee  on  the 
insane  recommended  that  the  Commission  in  Lunacy  consist  of  several 
members  instead  of  one,  on  account  of  the  extent  of  the  service  required. 

There  are  to-day  four  states  in  the  Union  where  the  care  of  the 
insane  is  entrusted  to  members  of  commissions  created  for  that  purpose 
— California,  Maryland,  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  and  in  these 
states  the  care  of  the  insane  reaches  its  highest  level.  As  might  be 
expected,  the  best  state  supervision  over  the  mental  defective  is  found 
in  those  states,  such  as  Massachusetts,  in  which  it  is  vested  in  an  expert 
lunacy  board,  dealing  with  problems  closely  related.  But  in  New 
York,  the  care  of  the  insane  alone  is  a  greater  task  than  the  care  of 
all  the  delinquents,  dependents  and  mental  defectives  in  any  other  state. 
Moreover,  the  supervision  of  hospitals  for  the  insane  is  primarily  medical, 
that  of  institutions  for  feeble-minded  primarily  custodial,  with  an  element 
of  the  educational. 

I  find  that  there  is  a  demand  from  one  end  of  the  state  to  the  other, 
both  in  and  out  of  the  institutions,  for  the  creation  of  a  new  and  inde- 
pendent department  for  the  care  of  the  feeble-minded,  and  that  this 
demand  is  irrespective  of  any  personnel  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities, 
however  able  that  might  be.  This  demand  is  based  in  the  main  on 


140 

the  considerations  I  have  recited,  and  is  for  a  board  consisting  of  experts 
in  treating  the  special  problem  of  mental  deficiency,  receiving  salaries 
commensurate  with  the  importance  of  the  work  and  devoting  themselves 
to  that  problem  alone.  The  suggestion  is  made  that  a  suitable  board 
would  consist  of  a  psychiatrist,  a  general  practitioner  of  medicine,  a 
lawyer,  a  member  skilled  in  the  sciences  and  an  educationist.  Mr.  Frank 
A.  Vanderlip,  chairman  of  the  board  of  managers  of  Letchworth  Village, 
testified : 

"I  believe,  therefore,  that  a  separate  body,  composed  of  men 
equipped  by  training  and  experience  to  deal  with  this  special  group 
and  who  would  direct  their  undivided  attention  to  the  develop- 
ment of  a  comprehensive  plan  for  the  care  and  treatment  of  the 
mentally  deficient  and  supervisory  control  of  State  Institutions 
and  work  for  the  mentally  deficient  and  epileptic  could  deal  more 
effectively  with  this  phase  of  the  States'  responsibility  than  the 
State  Board  of  Charities,  having  the  supervision  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  Charitable  Institutions  differing  widely  in  character  of 
equipment  and  service,  however  able  the  personnel  of  such  a 
board." 

The  committee  of  the  Psychiatric  Society  said  in  1915 : 

"It  seemed  to  your  Committee  that  the  tasks  of  putting  into 
operation  a  new  and  comprehensive  law  for  dealing  with  mental 
deficiency,  of  developing  the  different  types  of  institutions  needed 
and  of  carrying  out  plans  for  securing  adequate  protection  of 
the  mentally  defective  in  the  community  are  so  vastly  important 
that  they  should  be  entrusted  only  to  a  Commission  created  espe- 
cially for  their  performance  and  composed  of  the  best  qualified 
persons  whom  the  State  can  secure.  We  are  convinced  that  the 
administration  of  institutions  for  the  mentally  defective  and  of 
laws  for  their  protection  and  commitment  is  not  a  proper  function 
of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  and  that  the  care  and  commit- 
ment of  epileptics  should  be  a  function  of  a  board  created  to  deal 
with  mental  deficiency." 

I  have  already  said  that  I  believe  that  this  new  department  should 
be  established.  I  am  aware  that  the  proposal  was  placed  before  the 
last  constitutional  convention  and  that  it  was  not  acted  upon;  but  I 


141 

should  not,  by  reason  of  this,  be  deterred  from  expressing  my  own  view 
that  this  department  should  be  established  and  the  hope  that  provision 
for  it  will  be  made  in  a  future  amendment  to  the  constitution. 

The  view  has  been  expressed  that  the  legislature  may  now  create  a  Question  as 
new  department  for  the  supervision  of  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded,  tionaiityof 

.....  .  .  .     .          aNewDepart- 

and  vest  in  it  the  power  of  visitation  and  inspection,  retaining  ment. 
inviolate  the  visitational  power  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 
With  this  view  I  do  not  agree.  The  visitational  power  of  the  State 
Board  over  institutions  of  this  character,  which  have  always  been  classed 
as  charitable  institutions,  is  exclusive,  as  I  view  it,  and  it  follows  that 
it  is  beyond  legislative  power  to  create  another  board  with  visitational 
power  over  the  same  institutions.  Were  it  not,  I  should  not  favor  the 
multiplication  of  supervision  and  division  of  responsibility  that  would 
follow  such  grant  of  power  to  another  department. 

The  view  has  also  been  expressed  that  the  legislature  should  now  be  Suggestion  of 
asked  to  create  a  new  board  or  commission,  without  the  power  of  institu-  ment^ithout 
tional  visitation  and  inspection,  which  power  must  remain  with  the  State  visitation. 
Board,  but  with  certain  powers  of  administrative  control  over  these  institu- 
tions, and  confer  upon  it  certain  duties  with  respect  to  registration  and 
observation  of  the  mental  defective  in  the  public  schools  and  in  private 
homes,  and  also  the  power  to  enable  it  to  provide  for  a  series  of  state 
clearing  houses  or  laboratories  in  which  there  should  be  adequate  tests 
to  enable  the  courts  and  institutional  heads  to  detect  mental 
deficiency.  But  this  again  would  serve  to  multiply  administrative 
and  supervising  agencies,  of  which  we  have  already  seen  too  much  and 
which  I  had  hoped  to  find  some  way  to  end.  Further,  the  new  board 
could  not  serve  efficiently  or  accomplish  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
created  without  the  visitorial  right.  While  it  would  be  unconstitutional 
to  give  the  new  board  or  commission  visitorial  power,  it  would  render 
it  in  large  measure  futile  not  to  do  so.  Indeed,  it  was  admitted  before 
the  last  constitutional  convention  by  advocates  of  the  new  department 
that  a  constitutional  amendment  was  essential,  and  it  was  predicted  that 
the  legislature,  in  the  light  of  experience,  would  not  readily  create  a 
fresh  instance  of  divided  power. 

Until  the  constitution  is  so  amended  that  this  great  and  menacing  Recommenda- 
problem  of  mental  deficiency  can  be  treated,  as  it  should  be,  by  the  Bureau 
creation  of  a  new  and  independent  department,  with  full  powers,  the  State  Board. 
State  Board  of  Charities  should  be  so  reorganized  that  it  will  be  able 


142 

to  assume  the  requisite  leadership.  One  member  of  the  State  Board 
should  be  a  physician  with  special  distinction  and  training  in  psychiatry, 
and  he  should  be  ex  officio  the  chairman  or  executive  head  of  a  new 
bureau  within  the  State  Board,  to  be  known  as  the  "Bureau  for  Mental 
Deficiency",  and  equipped  with  an  adequate  expert  staff.  The  chairman 
of  the  bureau  should  name,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  State  Board, 
an  unpaid  advisory  council  of  four  or  more,  possessing  the  special 
qualifications  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made  Dr.  Fernald 
of  Massachusetts  said: 

"This  state  supervision  of  the  feeble-minded  might  be  done 
successfully  by  some  existing  organization  like  a  properly  consti- 
tuted state  board  of  health,  or  state  board  of  charities,  or  by  a 
special  board  or  official;  but  the  responsible  official  should  be  a 
physician  trained  in  psychiatry,  with  especial  knowledge  of  all 
phases  of  mental  deficiency  and  its  many  social  expressions." 

The  first  duty  of  this  new  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency  would  be  to 
acquaint  the  people  of  the  state  with  the  gravity  of  the  problem.  The 
English  Royal  Commission  on  the  care  and  control  of  the  feeble-minded, 
made  up  of  some  of  the  strongest  men  in  the  kingdom,  considered  the 
subject  from  1904  to  1908.  Its  report  and  the  Mental  Deficiency  Act  of 
1913,  based  on  it,  were  regarded  as  laying  deep  the  foundations  upon 
which  might  be  built  an  enlightened  system  of  care  and  protection  of  the 
mental  defective.  The  committee  of  the  Psychiatric  Society  has  utilized 
this  report  as  the  basis  of  suggestions  for  the  general  powers  of  a  new 
central  board.  They  may  well  suffice  for  such  bureau  as  I  have  recom- 
mended. Some  of  the  suggestions  are:  (1)  To  supervise  the  work  per- 
formed by  the  local  authorities,  who  should  be  the  sanitary  supervisors, 
an  agency  created  under  the  recent  reorganization  of  the  health  service 
of  the  state  and  which  now  cares  for  the  insane  pending  commitment 

(2)  Supervise  public  institutions  for  the  mental  defective  and  epileptic. 

(3)  Supervise  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  law  relating  to  com- 
mitment and  registration  of  the  mental  defective  and  his  protection  in 
the  community.     (4)  License  and  inspect  private  institutions  for  the  men- 
tal defective  and  epileptic.     (5)   Conduct  and  encourage  research  into 
the  medical,  social  and  economic  relations  of  mental  deficiency.     (6)  De- 
vise plans  for  the  development  of  state  care  of  the  mental  defective  and 
epileptic.      (7)   Present  to  the  legislature   estimates    for  appropriations 


143 

therefor.  (8)  Establish  state  institutions  for  the  continued  care  of  com- 
mitted cases  and  state  intermediate  institutions  for  the  reception,  study 
and  classification  of  new  cases.  (9)  Provide  for  mental  examination  of 
all  inmates  in  penal  and  juvenile  delinquent  institutions  and  for  transfers 
to  suitable  institutions. 

This  new  bureau  should,  and  doubtless  would,  consider  the  method- 
ology of  tests  for  the  feeble-minded  now  in  course  of  development  in  the 
Laboratory  of  Mental  Hygiene  at  Bedford,  and  the  work  at  Waverly 
House  of  the  New  York  Probation  and  Protective  Association. 

If  this  bureau  does  acquaint  the  people  of  the  state  with  the  gravity 
of  the  problem  of  mental  deficiency,  which,  as  I  have  said  at  the  outset, 
is  perhaps  the  greatest  social  problem  that  confronts  the  state,  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  solution  will  fail  for  the  reason  that  it  will  necessitate  the 
outlay  of  a  large  sum  of  money.  As  Dr.  Fernald  said: 

"The  expense  of  this  plan  of  centralized  supervision  and  con- 
trol of  the  feeble-minded  may  seem  to  be  an  objection,  but  it  is 
not  a  valid  one,  for  States  like  Massachusetts,  New  York  or  Ohio, 
for  instance,  are  now  really  wasting  vast  sums  of  money  annually 
in  haphazard  methods  of  temporizing  with  the  social  consequences 
of  mental  defect,  instead  of  dealing  with  the  feeble-mindedness 
itself.  We  are  now  pouring  water  on  the  smoke  instead  of  on  the 
fire." 

A  Reorganization  of  the  State  Charitable  System. 

To  construct  a  system  of  administration  for  the  institutional  service 
of  the  state  on  a  clean  slate  would  be  one  task;  to  devise  a  compre- 
hensive plan  of  reorganization,  in  view  of  conditions  as  they  are,  is  quite 
another.  In  the  one  case,  it  would  be  what  is  the  ideal ;  in  the  other,  what 
under  the  circumstances  is  the  best  that  can  be  done.  Executive  recom- 
mendation for  legislative  enactment  is,  of  course,  subject  to  the  limitations 
of  the  constitution  of  1894,  which,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it,  needs 
reconstruction  in  its  provisions  relating  to  charities  and  corrections.  Consideratioa 
Then  again,  the  established  order  may  not  lightly  be  disregarded  when 
it  is  the  common  view  that  under  it  a  great  work  has  been  done. 

I  realize  that  no  plan  of  reorganization   for  the  administration  of 
any  one  of  the  three  great  groups  of  institutional  service  should  be  sug-  andtheS°ns 
gested  without  consideration  of  the  schemes  of  administration  that  obtain 


144 

in  the  others  and  without  consideration  of  the  obvious  relation  that  each 
group  bears  to  the  other.  I  have  endeavored  to  give  such  consideration. 
If  the  state  of  New  York  stood  to-day  at  the  threshold,  for  the  first 
time  looking  out  upon  this  administrative  field,  it  might  be  desirable  to 
formulate  a  plan  under  which  there  should  be  one  supreme  administrator, 
responsible  only  to  the  executive,  serving  as  a  coordinating  agency  and 
presiding  over  the  three  or  more  units  of  the  institutional  service,  the 
charities,  prisons,  hospitals,  and  perhaps  other  groups.  It  is  a  big  field 
which  requires  for  its  support  about  one-third  of  the  revenues  of  the 
state.  It  is  possible  that  such  plan,  even  now  in  the  face  of  all  that  has 
grown  up,  should  receive  general  consideration.  I  have  considered  it, 
but  there  are  several  reasons  why  I  cannot  favor  it.  First,  I  cannot 
construe  the  terms  of  my  commission  to  cover  an  investigation  of  the 
management  and  affairs  of  the  State  Hospital  Commission,  which  super- 
vises the  hospitals  for  the  insane,  or  of  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Prisons  and  the  Prison  Commission,  to  whom  the  prisons  are  assigned. 
Secondly,  I  have  not  made  such  investigation,  and  without  it  I  could  not 
make  recommendations  vitally  and  fundamentally  affecting  the  systems 
of  organization  in  those  groups  without,  perhaps,  raising  a  question  as 
to  whether  I  had  sufficient  foundation  for  such  recommendations  as  I 
shall  make  with  respect  to  the  group  of  charitable  institutions.  Thirdly, 
I  have  evolved  no  plan  and  seen  no  plan  for  central  supervision  or  control 
over  all  institutional  groups  that  does  not  seem  to  me  to  call  for  plain 
violation  of  the  constitution.  Fourthly,  I  do  not  see  clearly  sufficient 
merit  in  such  plan  to  justify  an  upheaval  in  the  present  admirable  admin- 
istration of  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  that  would  almost  certainly  follow 
if  such  plan  were  carried  to  its  logical  end.  Finally,  I  do  not  find  any 
analogy  for  it  in  other  states  where  good  administrative  systems  are  in 
force.  In  New  York  there  are  43  state  institutions  which  would  be  brought 
within  the  domain  of  such  central  regulation  and  control  as  would  be  pro- 
vided. I  am  told  that  the  largest  number  of  institutions  grouped  under 
any  system  of  central  control  in  the  United  States  is  15.  The  largest 
group  under  any  merely  supervisory  system  is  27.  The  average  size  of 
groups  now  under  systems  of  centralized  control  is  10. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  there  should  be  a  statutory  requirement  for 
periodic  conferences  among  the  three  constitutional  groups,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  what,  if  anything,  could  advantageously  be  bought 
by  joint  purchase  for  all  institutions.  This  conference  should  also  be 


145 

charged  with  the  promotion  of  such  uniformity  in  salary  schedules  as 
may  be  practicable,  and  I  so  recommend,  although  the  importance  of  this 
has  been  lessened  by  the  creation  of  the  new  budget-agency  and  will  be 
minimized  in  case  the  proposals  of  Senator  Horton's  committee,  to  which 
I  have  referred,  become  law. 

Limiting  this  report  to  a  consideration  of  the  charitable  group,  the  State  Board 

•  •  •    n  r*  T*          i  Must  be  Re- 

State  department  in  which  interest  chiefly  centers  is  the  State  Board  of  organized. 

Charities.  I  am  convinced  that  there  must  be  a  radical  change  in  the 
system  of  organization  of  that  board.  With  the  personnel  I  am  not 
concerned,  as  I  have  already  said.  My  conviction  that  there  must  be 
a  change  is  based  on  the  results  of  this  investigation,  a  part  of  which 
I  have  set  forth  in  this  report.  The  State  Board  of  Charities  cannot 
be  abolished.  The  constitution  guarantees  it.  I  would  not  recommend 
that  it  be  abolished  if  it  could  be.  It  must  remain  and  it  should  be 
reorganized. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  lacks  power;  it  lacks  vision;  it  lacks 
drive.  It  does  not  know  its  real  job.  It  is  not  doing  its  real  job.  It 
is  ailing  and  it  shows  no  sign  that  it  knows  what  is  the  matter  with  it. 

One  way  to  reorganize  would  be  to  abolish  the  office  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  and  all  the  unnecessary  minor  boards  and  commissions  and 
create  a  new  executive  department  and  vest  and  consolidate  in  it  all  the 
administrative  powers  that  should  be  preserved,  leaving  the  State  Board 
on  the  side  with  its  visitorial  power.  In  my  judgment  this  would  make 
a  bad  matter  worse.  This,  in  substance,  was  the  proposal  in  certain  legis- 
lative bills  introduced  in  1915,  providing  for  a  state  commissioner  of 
chanties.  This  would  be  going  still  further  in  pursuit  of  the  policy  that 
established  the  department  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  in  1902  which,  as 
I  have  pointed  out,  did  so  much  to  weaken  the  State  Board.  In  those 
states  where  such  boards  of  control  have  been  built  up  alongside  of 
supervisory  state  boards  of  charities,  the  latter,  sooner  or  later,  loose 
their  prestige  and  are  often  abolished. 

A  better  way,  I  believe,  is  to  convert  a  weak  board  into  a  strong 
board,  a  board  with  inadequate  power  into  a  board  with  real  power; 
to  create  a  board  that  will  command  respect  and  exercise  all  the  power 
that  it  should  in  order  to  develop  the  highest  type  of  charitable  service 
in  and  out  of  the  institutions,  public  and  private;  a  board  on  which 
public  spirited  men  will  delight  to  serve  because  they  know  it  can  be 
made  efficient.  I  do  not  mean  a  board  of  control  such  as  exists  in  many 


146 


states,  and  usually  not  with  advantage,  but  a  strong,  authoritative, 
advisory  and  supervisory  board,  with  sufficient  administrative  power  to 
carry  it  through,  and  at  the  same  time  to  cut  out  the  vicious  circle  of 
interference  by  other  administrators.  In  no  sense  could  this  become  a 
board  of  control  without  the  elimination  of  the  local  boards  of  managers. 
This  I  should  never  recommend.  Theirs  is  the  primary  and  fundamental 
administrative  control.  On  the  whole,  this  local  control  is  discharged 
with  singular  fidelity.  The  abolition  of  local  boards  of  managers  in 
the  hospitals  for  the  insane  in  1902  was  followed  by  their  restoration  in 
1905.  The  only  attempt  to  abolish  local  boards  in  the  charitable  institu- 
tions failed.  These  boards  exist  in  those  states  which  possess  the  best 
institutional  service.  Local  boards  are  at  times  extravagant,  but  there 
is  ample  check  for  this  in  the  plan  which  I  propose. 

The  attitude  of  the  members  of  the  State  Board  toward  an  increase 
in  power  through  the  imposition  of  certain  administrative  duties  is 
singularly  inconsistent.  When  the  proposition  was  stated  generally  to 
them,  almost  without  exception  they  protested  that  they  did  not  want 
powers  of  administration,  that  the  board  is  historically  a  board  of  visita- 
tion, and  that  this  has  come  to  be  a  principle  which  must  be  kept  inviolate. 
The  reason  was  that  the  moment  visitation  became  united  with  any  sub- 
stantial degree  of  control,  visitation  ceased  to  be  independent  and  fearless ; 
in  other  words,  that  an  inspector  could  not  be  expected  to  condemn  his 
own  management.  This  is  plausible  and,  in  a  sense,  is  legitimate  criticism 
or  fair  argument.  The  answer,  however,  in  the  first  place  is  that  there 
is  no  proposal  that  the  State  Board  shall  manage  the  institutions.  The 
management  will  remain  where  it  is,  in  the  local  boards  of  managers 
and  the  superintendents  appointed  by  and  responsible  to  them.  Another 
answer  is  that  it  would  not  work  out  that  way.  For  example,  take  the 
supervision  of  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  by  the  State  Hospital  Com- 
mission. The  legislature  has  granted  to  it  all  the  powers  of  supervisory 
control,  and  more,  over  the  hospitals,  than  I  would  recommend  for  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  in  respect  of  state  charitable  institutions,  and 
I  have  yet  to  hear  that  the  Hospital  Commission  has  failed  to  visit  and 
inspect  and  check  up  the  hospitals  as  required. 

When  the  members  of  the  State  Board  were  interrogated  specifically  as 
to  extra-visitorial  powers,  they  realized  that  they  had  possessed  some  for 
years  and  that  a  grant  of  more  might  be  advisable.  The  State  Board 
had  the  more  important  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  building  plans 


147 

for  state  institutions.  In  1902  it  was  taken  away.  The  Poor  Law  pro- 
vides that  the  State  Board  shall  "administer  the  laws  providing  for  the 
care,  support  and  removal  of  State  and  alien  poor,"  and  in  pursuance 
thereof  the  State  Board  contracts  with  county  supervisors  for  the  use 
of  certain  almshouses  for  the  State  poor.  The  Secretary  said  that  prior 
to  the  day  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor,  the  State  Board  had,  to  some  extent, 
controlled  the  financial  affairs  of  the  institutions.  The  President  said 
"Many  powers  of  executive  character  have  been  entrusted  to  it,"  and 
enumerated  them.  The  new  law  providing  for  boards  of  child  welfare, 
arising  out  of  the  movement  in  favor  of  widowed  mothers'  pensions, 
imposes  upon  the  State  Board  certain  duties  unmistakably  administrative 
and  executive.  Consider  the  power  of  the  State  Board  over  the  dis- 
pensaries. It  may  license  them,  make  rules  and  regulations  for  their 
administration,  inspect  them  and  revoke  their  licenses.  Is  not  this  super- 
visory control?  The  courts  have  so  characterized  it.  The  attorney- 
general  has  spoken  of  the  board's  power  as  "directory  and  supervisory." 

So  it  is  seen  that  while  the  State  Board  cries  out  against  the  amalgama- 
tion within  it  of  visitorial  and  administrative  supervision,  and  even  calls 
it  unconstitutional,  it  nevertheless  possesses  it.  The  difficulty  is  that  it 
does  not  possess  enough  of  it.  The  fact  is  that  the  duty  of  inspection 
cannot  be  fully  and  effectually  separated  from  the  duty  of  supervisory 
administration. 

The  State  Board  has  never  succeeded  in  its  protests  against  the  union 
of  visitation  and  administrative  power.  In  1890,  for  example,  it  unavail- 
ingly  importuned  the  legislature  not  to  divest  it  of  visitorial  power  over 
the  hospitals  for  the  insane,  which  it  was  then  sharing  with  the  State 
Lunacy  Commission,  making  the  familiar  argument  that,  as  the  Com- 
mission enjoyed  certain  large  administrative  powers,  there  must  be  an 
independent  visitorial  power.  And  in  1894,  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion confirmed  in  the  Hospital  Commission  its  united  powers  of  visitation 
and  fiscal  control. 

After  analyzing  the  different  kinds  of  state  boards  of  charities  in  the  Expert  Op 
several  states,  JDr.  Salmon  said  :   "A  state  board  that  has  only  inspecting 
power,  no  power  of  administration,  speedily  loses  its  influence." 


The  late  Thomas  M.  Mulry,  member  of  the  State  Board,  said: 
"Authoritative  supervision  of  charities  is  absolutely  necessary." 

Dr.  Smith,  of  the  State  Board,  expressed  the  desire  that  the  State 
Board  should  be  equipped  with  such  power  and  duties  as  to  make  it 


148 

"a  strong  advisory  board,"  and  thought  some  administrative  duties  might 
increase  the  prestige  of  the  board. 

Mr.  Wright,  in  his  analysis  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  said: 
"The  successes  and  failures  in  New  York,  Indiana  and  Iowa  seem  to 
make  it  reasonably  clear  not  only  that  a  power  of  limited  control  and 
the  function  of  giving  advice  should  be  combined,  but  also  that  such 
a  combination  is  practicable  and  workable." 

The  President  of  the  State  Board  expressed  the  view  that:  "The 
more  important  the  work,  the  more  care  the  governor  will  take  in 
selection." 

Professor  Clark,  of  the  University  of  Nebraska,  who  wrote  in  1905 
upon  "State  Supervision  of  Charities,"  considers  that  the  "charities  of 
Massachusetts  are  more  completely  organized  than  in  any  other  State  of 
the  Union,"  and  comments  on  the  numerous  important  administrative 
powers  possessed  by  the  State  Board  of  Charity  of  that  state. 

Mr.  Kelso,  the  secretary  of  that  board,  is  a  strong  advocate  of  cen- 
tralizing policy-making  powers  in  the  State  Board,  and  decentralizing 
administrative  details  among  the  several  institution  heads ;  but  he  points 
out  the  numerous  important  administrative  powers  of  the  Massachusetts 
board,  such  as  the  care  of  the  state  adult  poor,  the  care  and  custody 
of  5,600  state  minor  wards  in  private  homes,  the  approval  of  all  plans 
for  new  buildings  and  the  approval  of  institution  estimates  for  the  annual 
legislative  maintenance  appropriation.  That  board  also  analyzes  each 
month  all  pay  rolls  and  bills  for  supplies,  furnishings  and  repairs,  and  all 
vouchers,  and  supervises  joint  purchasing. 

I  would  give  to  the  New  York  State  Board  of  Charities  the  power 
to  require  submission  to  it  in  the  first  instance  of  all  institutional  requests 
for  appropriations,  whether  for  maintenance  or  otherwise,  before  submis- 
sion thereof  to  the  legislature  or  the  executive  or  the  new  budget- 
agency  provided  in  1916,  always  reserving  the  right  of  any  of  these 
bodies  to  go  directly  to  the  institutions  for  budgetary  information. 

In  the  constitution  is  the  express  provision  (Art.  VIII,  §  15)  that: 
"The  legislature  may  confer  upon  the  commissions  and  upon  the  board 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections  any  additional  powers  that  are  not 
inconsistent  with  other  provisions  of  the  constitution."  The  attorney- 
general  advised  Gov.  Odell,  in  1902,  that  legislation  was  constitutional 
which  provided  for  the  abolition  of  the  local  boards  of  managers  in  the 
hospitals  for  the  insane  and  imposed  all  managerial  power  upon  the 


149 

dtate  Lunacy  Commission.  The  constitutional  provisions  relating  to  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  State  Lunacy  Commission  are  identical. 
Such  administrative  powers  as  have  been  conferred  upon  the  State  Board 
since  1894,  and  such  as  I  shall  propose  now  to  confer,  are  obviously  not 
inconsistent  with  the  power  of  visitation.  They  are  supplemental  thereto. 

It  hardly  lies  in  the  mouth  of  the  State  Board  to  contest  the  consti- 
tutionality of  legislative  grants  of  administrative  or  executive  power  in 
view  of  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  statement  made  in  1894  before  the 
constitutional  convention  by  Mr.  Lauterbach,  chairman  of  its  charities 
committee,  that  the  State  Board  had  urged  that  it  be  made  "simply  a 
constitutional  board  to  visit  and  inspect,  and  leaving  all  the  rest  to  the 
legislature  to  be  increased  or  diminished." 

The  President  of  the  State  Board  testified :     "My  idea  would  be  to  The  Nature 
continue  the  board  as  it  is,  strengthen  it  where  it  is  weak,  restore  to  it  of  increase 
the  power  to  visit  and  inspect  all  institutions     *     *     *    but  particularly 
those  in  which  inmates  are  confined."    I  have  said  elsewhere  that  I  favor 
such  restoration  of  the  power  of  the  State  Board  to  inspect  all  private 
institutions,  whether  in  receipt  of  public  aid  or  not,  as  may  be  constitu- 
tional.   It  is  my  purpose  to  suggest  executive  recommendation  of  increased 
legislative  grants  of  power  to  strengthen  it,  but  it  is  not  my  idea  that  the 
board  should  be  continued  as  it  is. 

There  should  be  consideration,  first,  as  to  the  nature  of  such  increase 
in  power  and  its  probable  effect;  and,  secondly,  the  kind  of  State  Board 
that  is  most  likely  to  discharge  well  the  obligations,  new  and  old,  that  are 
imposed  upon  it. 

First,  as  to  the  nature  and  effect  of  increase  in  power. 

In  1907,  the  President  of  the  State  Board  was  writing  on  "The  Neces- 
sary and  Reasonable  Powers  of  a  State  Board  of  Charities."  He  said: 

"The  supervision  of  the  finances  of  state  charitable  institutions' 
was  taken  from  the  Comptroller's  office  and  vested  in  a  Fiscal 
Supervisor  of  State  Charities  in  the  year  1902.  The  State  Con- 
stitution makes  these  institutions  subject  to  the  inspection  and 
visitation  of  the  Board,  and  this  broad  language  would  seem  to 
imply  supervision  of  all  their  operations,  including  those  of  a 
fiscal  nature.  No  inspection  is  complete  which  does  not  take 
account  of  the  financial  transactions  of  an  institution,  and  the 
present  arrangement  of  a  separate  state  department  for  fiscal  super- 
vision results  only  in  unnecessary  duplication  and  overlapping  of 


150 

work   and   in   divided    responsibility.      The '  financial    supervision 
should  also  be  centered  in  the  State  Board." 

It  is  evident  that  the  President  of  the  State  Board  then  believed 
that  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  should  be  abolished  and  his  super- 
vision over  fiscal  affairs,  including  the  revision  of  the  quarterly  estimates 
of  the  institutions,  should  be  restored  to  the  State  Board,  as  the  constitu- 
tion makers  intended.  This  apparently  is  not  his  view  now,  for  he  sug- 
gests that  the  fiscal  power  should  go  to  the  comptroller.  But  it  is  the 
present  view  of  one  of  his  colleagues  on  the  board,  who  testified: 
"Financial  supervision  of  the  state  charitable  institutions  would  work 
better  if  it  were  in  the  control  of  the  State  Board  than  in  a  separate 
official."  The  other  members  of  the  State  Board  are  lined  up  on  this 
subject  against  the  plainly  preponderating  weight  of  competent  opinion. 
The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  in  an  appraisal  for  the  constitutional 
convention  in  1915,  set  forth  that:  "A  strong  state  board  with  a  fiscal 
supervisor  if  necessary  as  one  of  its  executive  officers  could  be  properly 
related  to  the  local  boards  with  whatever  demarcation  between  super- 
vision and  control  the  legislature  deemed  wise,  and  the  result  would 
make  for  simplicity,  directness  and  responsiveness  in  organization."  In 
the  same  document,  the  point  is  made  that  if  the  State  Board  and  Fiscal 
Supervisor  are  brought  together,  it  would  end  duplication  of  inspection 
and  conflicting  advice  on  policies  to  be  followed  by  the  local  boards. 
Professor  Clark,  of  Nebraska,  to  whom  I  have  referred,  said  one  serious 
defect  in  the  New  York  system  could  be  met  by  giving  the  State  Board 
the  right  of  supervision  over  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  Dr.  Thomas  W. 
Salmon  testified  that,  as  the  creation  of  the  independent  department  of 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  weakened  the  State  Board  in  1902,  the  abolition 
of  the  department  would  strengthen  the  board  in  1916. 

One  result  of  the  separation  of  fiscal  control  from  policy-making 
control  in  the  state  charitable  institutions  is  the  frequent  rejection  by 
the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of  an  item  in  the  estimate  which  may  be  the  denial 
of  a  purchase  recommended  by  the  State  Board,  and  that  without  the 
knowledge  of  either.  A  contrast  to  this  is  afforded  in  the  departments 
of  the  Hospital  Commission  and  Superintendent  of  Prisons,  in  both 
of  which  policy-making  control  and  fiscal  control  are  united.  The  figures 
show  that  the  disallowances  in  the  two  latter  departments  are  less  than  in 
the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor. 


151 

The  State  Board  called  my  attention  to  an  address  by  Fred  H.  Wines, 
of  Illinois,  delivered  before  a  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Cor- 
rections in  1890,  in  which  he  set  forth  the  value  of  supervisory  and 
advisory  state  boards  of  charities  as  against  state  boards  of  control.  I 
note  a  significant  passage  in  that  address : 

"The  moral  power  of  the  board  has  been  very  largely  enforced 
by  giving  it  control  of  the  purse-strings  of  the  institutions  to  the 
following  extent :  the  State  Board  audits  the  accounts,  which  have 
already  been  audited  by  the  local  trustees;  and  if  they  are  found 
incorrect  or  contrary  to  law,  further  payments  from  the  State 
treasury  are  suspended  until  the  question  at  issue  is  adjusted. 
It  is,  we  think,  to  be  desired  that  other  similar  boards  in  other 
States  should  have  like  power  conferred  upon  them." 

I  utterly  disapprove  the  suggestion  made  by  so  many  members  of 
the  State  Board,  that  the  comptroller  should  be  called  upon  to  re-take 
the  duty  of  the  revision  of  institution  estimates  that  he  thankfully  dis- 
carded in  1902  as  properly  belonging  elsewhere,  and  the  return  of  which 
he  now  opposes.  In  his  report  for  1903  he  said: 

"The  wisdom  of  transferring  the  matter  of  revision  and  ap- 
proval of  estimates  of  these  institutions  from  a  department,  the 
responsible  head  of  which  could  of  necessity  give  but  little  per- 
sonal attention  to  it,  to  a  separate  department,  the  head  of  which 
gives  his  whole  attention  to  that  particular  work,  and  personally 
visits  and  inspects  the  institutions,  has  already  been  justified  and 
will  undoubtedly  prove  of  great  benefit  to  the  State  and  to  the 
institutions  for  which  it  cares." 

And  again  in  his  report  for  1914 : 

"The  only  satisfactory  check  upon  the  expenditure  of  the 
State's  funds  can  be  made  by  the  supervision  and  audit  of  an 
official  who  is  not  concerned  in  creating  the  appropriation  or  in 
expending  it.  A  disinterested  audit  and  approval  of  all  obliga- 
tions created  against  the  State  is  an  absolutely  necessary  safeguard 
of  the  public  funds." 

When  the  attention  of  the  State  Board  members  was  called  to  the 
bad  finance  involved  in  asking  an  independent  auditor  to  audit  bills  that 


152 

have  accrued  by  reason  of  his  having  previously  allowed  them  to  accrue, 
they  were  inclined  to  desire  time  to  consider.  As  the  Deputy  Fiscal 
Supervisor  put  it,  it  is  the  province  of  the  comptroller  to  determine 
whether  payments  are  authorized  by  law  and  are  within  the  amount  of 
the  appropriation;  it  is  not  to  determine  whether  the  institutions  are 
properly  discharging  their  functional  activities  or  whether  proposed 
expenses  are  necessary. 

Mr.  Dennis  McCarthy,  who  is  the  only  person  who  has  been  both 
Fiscal  Supervisor  and  a  member  of  the  State  Board,  testified  that  the 
best  place  to  transfer  the  functions  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  is  where 
they  can  be  discharged  most  economically,  and  that,  he  said,  would  be 
the  State  Board  of  Charities,  which  would  need  a  new  bureau  with  a 
man  "at  the  head  of  it".  Mr.  Hervey's  notion  of  an  allotment  on  esti- 
mates is  that  it  is  the  product  of  special  administrative  judgment,  that 
the  comptroller  should  not  be  expected  to  discharge  such  function,  and 
that  it  should  either  be  remitted  to  the  institution  itself  or  conferred 
on  "whatever  authority  you  put  over  it  to  direct  it". 

To  sum  this  up :  Preservation  of  the  autonomy  of  the  auditing  agency 
is  a  sound  principle  in  administration.  The  imposition  of  this  class  of 
administrative  duties  upon  the  comptroller  would  tend  to  destroy  this 
autonomy.  The  State  Board  takes  a  curious  attitude  in  now  fending  off 
the  grant  of  the  fiscal  power  which  its  president  said  in  1907  was  a 
constitutional  power  of  the  board  that  ought  not  to  have  been  taken  away. 
The  State  Board  has  frequently  commented  on  the  power  it  possesses 
over  private  institutions  in  issuing  or  withholding  certain  certificates. 
The  issuing  of  a  certificate  meant  the  payment  of  public  money  to  the 
institution ;  withholding  the  certificate  meant  that  the  payment  of  money 
was  stopped.  It  was  real  power.  There  is  in  this  a  complete  analogy  to 
the  relation  between  the  State  Board  and  the  state  institutions.  In  every 
line  of  the  revision  of  the  quarterly  estimate,  the  reviser  allots  the 
annual  appropriation  to  the  institution  pro  tanto ;  refusal  means  no 
money  for  the  desired  purchase.  The  effect  is  instant  and  complete.  The 
power  which  the  board  has  hitherto  found  effective  in  the  case  of  the 
private  institution  should  find  a  parallel  in  the  grant  to  the  board  of 
similar  power  over  the  state  institutions. 

Such  of  the  duties  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  as  relate  to  audit  should 
be  vested  in  the  comptroller  solely.  This  would  not  mean  the  imposi- 
tion of  any  new  duties  upon  the  comptroller.  He  has  them  now.  It 


153 

would  mean  simply  that  duplication  of  labor  in  the  process  of  audit  would 
be  ended. 

The  remaining  powers  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  either  are  now  vested 
in  the  State  Board  of  Charities  or  should  be.  Functions  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor  to  which  the  State  Board  is  unaccustomed  are  the  periodic 
revision  of  institution  estimates  and  the  supervision  of  purchasing  under 
joint  contract.  For  the  reasons  already  set  forth,  I  am  convinced  that 
the  estimate  system,  modified  as  I  have  hereinabove  suggested  to  the 
extent  of  providing  by  administrative  order  allotments  in  group  instead 
of  allotments  in  detail  as  at  present,  should  be  administered  by  one  mem- 
ber of  the  State  Board.  My  suggestion  is  that  that  member  shall  be  the 
president  of  the  State  Board,  to  be  appointed  and  compensated  as  herein- 
after provided.  The  inspectorial  staff  of  the  board,  which  visits  state 
institutions  and  which  could  be  enlarged  if  desirable,  would  bring  to  the 
desk  of  the  estimate  revision  officer  the  required  information  as  to  insti- 
tution needs.  The  president  of  the  board,  directing  this  work,  would,  as 
a  member  of  the  board,  know  its  policy  with  respect  to  each  of  the  institu- 
tions that  it  supervises. 

So  with  respect  to  purchase  under  joint  contract.  The  secretary  Purchasing 
of  the  State  Board  should  discharge  the  clerical  duty  now  performed  Contract?11 
by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  in  calling  together  annually  the  superintend- 
ents to  determine,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  State  Board,  what 
articles  might  be  advantageously  purchased  by  the  state  institutions 
under  joint  contract,  and  to  name  a  purchasing  committee  which  may 
make  such  purchases  under  institution  contracts  approved  by  the  State 
Board.  I  have  shown  that  the  advantage  of  joint  purchase  has  been  by 
many  greatly  overrated,  but  what  is  worth  doing  at  all  is  worth  doing 
well,  and  I  believe  that  more  can  be  made  out  of  the  system  than  has 
been  made  by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  Joint  Purchasing  Committee. 
In  that  event,  the  work  might  be  carried  on  under  the  direct  supervision 
of  the  president  of  the  State  Board. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  State  Board  of  Charity 
in  Massachusetts,  which  is  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  the  advisory 
state  board,  supervises  joint  purchasing.  The  president  of  the  New  York 
State  Board,  in  testifying  before  me  said  that  in  case  the  office  of  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor  is  abolished,  it  would  be  comparatively  easy  for  the 
State  Board  to  assume  supervision  over  purchases  by  joint  contract,  to 
pass  on  special  orders  on  construction  work  issued  by  the  State  Archi- 


154 


tect,  and  to  attend  to  other  details  now  within  the- field  of  the  Fiscal 
Supervisor;  and,  "if  it  could  be  done  without  violating  any  provision  of 
the  constitution,  it  would  be  a  great  step  in  advance  and  a  great  advantage 
to  the  institutions." 

I  quite  agree  with  the  president  of  the  State  Board  that  the  power 
of  approving  or  rejecting  plans  and  specifications  for  new  state  charitable 
institution  buildings,  and  for  alterations  and  repairs  in  existing  build- 
ings, now  resting  with  the  Building  Improvement  Commission  and  which 
was  once  vested  in  the  State  Board,  should  be  restored.  This  is  a  power 
sought  by  the  State  Board,  although  it  is  plainly  administrative.  The 
President  said :  "The  power  was  taken  away  for  political  reasons  and 
rests  in  a  special  commission  of  state  officials.  It  should  be  restored  to 
the  board  in  the  public  interests."  The  State  Board  already  has  a  Build- 
ing Construction  Committee  and  a  staff  for  this  work,  as  it  performs  a 
similar  service  for  the  almshouses  and  the  private  institutions.  In  order 
to  end  such  interminable  and  disastrous  delay  in  building  construction  as 
was  visited  upon  Letchworth  Village,  I  favor  the  suggestion  that  institu- 
tion authorities  be  authorized  by  law  to  retain  an  architect  to  draw  plans 
and  specifications  for  new  buildings  for  which  appropriations  have  been 
granted  in  case  the  state  architect  certifies  that  he  cannot  prepare  the 
plans  and  specifications  within  a  reasonable  time  to  be  fixed  by  statute, 
all  plans  and  specifications,  prepared  by  the  state  architect  or  other- 
wise, to  receive  the  approval  of  the  president  of  the  State  Board. 

I  also  agree  with  the  president  of  the  State  Board  and  other  members 
of  the  board  that  the  selections  of  sites  for  grounds  and  buildings  of  all 
new  state  charitable  institutions  and  of  new  buildings  for  existing  insti- 
tutions should  be  made  by  the  State  Board,  which  now  performs  a  similar 
service  for  the  counties  in  the  case  of  almshouses.  The  State  Board 
should  be  a  veritable  clearing  house  of  information  as  to  the  entire  state 
charitable  institutional  program,  and  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  of 
leadership  in  establishing  a  constructive  plan  for  the  development  of 
state  institutional  service,  should,  when  new  institutions  are  authorized 
by  the  legislature,  know  best  of  all  the  needs  of  the  state  at  large  and 
the  relative  claims  of  localities.  The  local  boards  of  managers  of  state 
institutions  still  possess  the  power  to  condemn  lands  for  institution  build- 
ings, although  that  power  was  also  vested  in  the  Commission  on  Sites, 
Grounds  and  Buildings  (Laws  1896,  C.  589). 


155 

What  I  have  written  under  the.  title  "Salary  Classification  Commis-  Power  to. 
sion"  makes  clear,  at  least  to  me,  that  what  if  anything  there  may  be  left 
for  it  to  do  in  the  present  state  of  the  law  does  not  justify  the  continuance 
of  the  commission.  If  I  felt  it  to  be  within  my  province  in  this  report 
to  express  any  view  on  an  annual  legislative  appropriation  for  "personal 
service",  carried  in  such  detail  as  in  1916,  I  should  say  that  it  is  unwise 
legislation.  I  hope  to  see  the  adoption  by  the  legislature  of  the  salary 
standards  proposed  in  1916  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Civil  Service, 
which  received  executive  approval.  Some  latitude  in  fixing  salaries 
should  be  reposed  in  the  local  boards  of  managers,  for  in  them  is  the 
primary  control  of  the  institutions  and  their  power  should  be  adequate 
to  enable  them  to  exercise  that  control.  Governor  Hughes  said  in  his 
annual  message  in  1909:  "It  is  not  advisable  that  particular  salaries  of 
subordinate  employees  in  state  institutions  should  be  fixed  directly  by  the 
Legislature.  These  matters  of  detail,  within  the  limits  fixed  by  the  legis- 
lative appropriations,  should  be  dealt  with  through  administrative 
agencies." 

If,  in  view  of  the  detailed  "personal  service"  appropriation,  there  is  standing  Con- 
any  place  left  for  any  sort  of  salary  classification  commission,  it  should  sSSSSS tc 
take  the   form   of  a   standing  conference   committee,   to  which   I  have  Prisons  and 
already  referred  in  treating  the  subject  of  joint  purchasing.     The  mem-  institutions, 
bers  of  this  committee  should  be  the  president  of  the  State  Board,  the 
chairman  of  the  Hospital  Commission  and  the  Superintendent  of  Prisons, 
called  together  at  regular  periods  by  the  president  of  the  State  Board 
representing  the  oldest  department  in  the  state  institutional  service.     In 
the  event  that  the  salary  standards  proposed  by  the  Horton  Committee 
are  not  adopted  by  the  legislature,  this  conference  committee  might  render 
an  important  service  in  securing  uniformity  of  compensation  for  similar 
service  in  the  three  groups,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  should  be  charged 
by  law  with  that  obligation. 

Secondly,  as  to  the  kind  of  State  Board  of  Charities  that  should  be  Form  of  the 
organized  to  discharge  the  functions,  new  and  old,  that  have  been  assigned  StTtegIoard. 
to  it. 

The  State  Board  now  consists  of  twelve  members  appointed  by  the 
governor,  one  from  each  judicial  district  and  three  more  from  New 
York  City,  term  eight  years ;  no  compensation  until  1894,  and  since  that 
date  nominal,  or  at  the  rate  of  $10  for  each  day's  attendance  at  meet- 
ings, not  to  exceed  $500  in  the  year.  There  are  no  qualifications  fixed 


156 


in  the  act.  There  is  a  secretary  to  the  board  who  has  an  annual  salary 
of  $6,000.  The  board  selects  its  president  and  other  officers.  There  is 
no  statutory  requirement  as  to  the  number  of  meetings. 

There  is  no  statutory  division  or  apportionment  of  duty.  Every  act 
of  the  State  Board,  call  it  supervisory,  visitational,  legislative,  judicial, 
administrative  or  executive,  is  the  act  of  the  twelve.  In  my  judgment, 
such  of  the  functions  of  the  State  Board  as  may  properly  be  called 
executive  or  administrative  and  which  it  has  possessed  in  the  past,  would 
have  been  more  efficiently  discharged  had  they  been  centered  in  one 
person  directly  responsible  to  the  governor.  The  imposition  on  the  State 
Board  of  important  new  duties,  such  as  the  revision  of  the  estimates 
and  group  allotments  thereon,  which  means  fiscal  control,  the  supervision 
of  purchase  by  joint  contract,  the  approval  of  state  institution  building 
plans  and  specifications,  will  render  imperative  the  imposition  of  these 
administrative  or  executive  duties  upon  one  member  of  the  board  if 
efficiency  is  to  be  obtained.  This  should  be  dealt  with  specifically  in  the 
statute.  The  president  of  the  board  should  be  this  administrative  and 
executive  officer,  and  the  president  should  be  designated  by  the  governor, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Public  Health  Council,  and  not  elected  by  the  board 
as  at  present.  To  what  extent,  if  any,  his  action,  as  such  officer,  should 
be  subject  to  the  review  of  the  board  at  large,  can  be  determined  only 
as  experience  in  the  work  teaches.  More  frequent  board  meetings  than 
are  now  the  rule  would  meet  one  objection  to  possible  delay  due  to  board 
review.  In  Massachusetts,  where  there  is  an  unpaid  state  board  of 
charity  with  nine  members,  there  are  two  regular  meetings  each  month, 
and  in  1914  there  were  28  meetings  of  the  board.  In  New  York,  the 
board  has  only  four  stated  meetings  in  the  year,  and  in  1915  there  were 
nine  meetings  in  all. 

Under  this  plan,  the  president*  of  the  board  should  be  held  directly 
responsible  for  obtaining  adequate  institutional  appropriations  for  mainte- 
nance and  new  construction,  and  for  putting  newly  authorized  institutions 
on  their  feet  as  to  sites  and  appropriations  for  buildings.  He  would 
share  with  the  chairman  of  the  new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children, 
which  I  shall  recommend,  responsibility  for  obtaining  for  the  board  an 
adequate  and  competent  inspectorial  staff  for  the  inspection  of  insti- 
tutions. He  should  acquaint  himself  with  the  reasons  for  the  startling 
disparities  in  per  capita  cost  in  similar  institutions  of  this  state  as 
compared  one  with  another,  and  with  those  in  other  states,  or,  what 


157 

is  more  suggestive,  the  differences  in  the  number  of  inmates  cared 
for  by  one  employee,  ^here  lies  for  him  also  a  field  hitherto  prac- 
tically undeveloped  by  the  Fiscal  Supervisor.  I  refer  to  the  upbuilding 
of  such  industry  in  the  several  state  institutions,  without  interfering  with 
general  markets,  as  would  tend  toward  making  the  institutions  self- 
supporting  and  thereby  diminishing  the  heavy  burden  upon  the  state. 

Examination  of  the  messages  of  the  governors  of  New  York  discloses 
frequent  asseverations  of  the  doctrine  of  "concentration  in  administrative 
responsibility",  notably  Governor  Hughes  and  Governor  Glynn.  It  hardly 
requires  elaboration  of  the  argument  that  the  best  way  to  get  things 
done  in  matters  executive  and  administrative  is  to  put  adequate  power 
in  the  hands  of  one  competent  man  and  hold  him  responsible.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  such  matters  as  the  making  of  rules  and  regulations  for 
institutions,  which  is  an  exercise  of  legislative  power,  or  authorizing 
incorporations  .  and  granting  and  revoking  dispensary  licenses  and  in 
approving  the  annual  institution  estimates  for  appropriations,  which 
call  for  the  rendition  of  a  judgment  or  the  determination  of  a  policy,  it 
is  safer  to  trust  to  the  judgment  of  a  group  constituting  a  board. 

I  would  take  the  risk  of  limiting  the  range  of  gubernatorial  selection  A  Board  of 
by  writing  into  the  act  the  qualifications  for  some,  at  least,  of  the  members.  Possessing 
These  qualifications  should,  of  course,  be  stated  with  reference  to  the  tor 
several  fields  of  activity  with  which  the  board  is  identified. 

I  would  make  a  board  of  nine  instead  of  twelve  as  now;  I  would 
have  a  president  of  the  board  who  is  a  skilled  administrator;  a  member,  • 
serving  as  chairman  of  the  new  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency,  who  is  a 
physician  with  special  training  in  psychiatry ;  a  member,  serving  as  chair- 
man of  the  new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children,  who  has  special  knowl- 
edge of  the  care  and  education  of  children  in  private  institutions  and 
of  children  placed  out  in  homes ;  a  member  who  is  a  penologist  or  skilled 
in  reformation  of  the  delinquent,  with  special  reference  to  the  seven  state 
institutions  concerned  with  delinquents;  a  member  who  is  skilled  in 
methods  of  education,  with  special  reference  to  the  two  state  schools ;  a 
member  who  is  a  physician  with  knowledge  of  tubercular  diseases,  with 
special  reference  to  the  state  institution  having  inmates  thus  afflicted;  a 
member  who  is  generally  conversant  with  dependency  and  the  several 
forms  of  poor  relief;  a  physician  who  is  a  general  practitioner  with 
special  reference  to  dispensaries  and  hospitals  and  to  the  state  institution 
for  crippled  children ;  and  a  member  who  is  a  lawyer. 


158 


Analogous  instances  of  statutory  qualifications- f  or  ^members  of  similar 
boards  in  New  York  are  the  Hospital  Commission,  which  must  be  made 
up  of  a  doctor,  a  lawyer  and  a  reputable  citizen,  and  the  Public  Health 
Council,  which  consists  of  the  Commissioner  of  Health,  who  must  be  a 
physician  with  special  training,  and  a  council  of  six,  of  whom  three 
must  be  physicians  trained  in  sanitary  science. 

There  is  nothing  that  I  can  see  in  such  qualifications  as  I  have  out- 
lined that  calls  for  such  close  and  narrowing  specialization  as  to  unfit 
a  member  for  a  broad  view  of  problems  other  than  his  own  that  may 
confront  the  board. 

The  statute  should  provide  that  at  least  one  of  the  nine  members 
must  be  a  woman.  One  of  the  most  distinguished  and  efficient  persons 
that  ever  held  membership  on  the  board  was  a  woman,  Josephine  Shaw 
Lowell.  She  was  the  main  spirit  in  the  foundation  of  at  least  two  of 
the  great  state  institutions.  She  served  from  1876  to  1889  and  retired 
only  because  she  felt  she  could  do  better  work  off  the  board  than  on.  The 
care  and  education  of  children  in  public  and  private  institutions  subject 
to  the  supervision  of  the  State  Board  is  one  of  its  chief  concerns.  In 
13  of  the  16  state  charitable  institutions  now  open  there  are  female 
inmates.  On  many  of  the  local  boards  of  managers  there  are  women, 
in  some  cases  by  requirement  of  law,  and  I  know  of  no  board  upon 
which  they  serve  that  would  consider  dispensing  with  them.  It  is  a  re- 
quirement of  the  statute  that  at  least  two  women  shall  be  appointed  to 
the  local  boards  of  child  welfare  established  in  1915.  In  several  of  the 
states  women  serve  on  state  boards  of  charities.  In  Massachusetts,  two 
of  the  nine  members  are  women.  The  Supreme  Court  in  that  state 
wrote,  in  speaking  of  the  State  Board  of  Charity:  "The  duties  of  the 
board  are  mostly  administrative  and  are  such  as  may  be  well  performed 
by  women"  (136  Mass.  581). 

I  appreciate  that  the  view  is  held  by  many  careful  observers  that  the 
State  Board  would  be  a  more  efficient  body  if  it  consisted  of  one  member, 
or  at  the  most  three.  It  is  clear  to  me  that  the  terms  of  the  constitution 
forbid  a  board  of  one,  and  I  doubt  if  adoption  of  the  suggestion  to  create 
a  board  of  one  with  an  advisory  council,  analogous  to  the  Public 
Health  Council,  would  make  it  constitutional.  The  latter  body  is  not 
named  in  the  constitution.  For  reasons  which  I  have  already  stated,  no 
one  person  should  be  called  upon  to  exercise  certain  of  the  legislative  and 
judicial  functions  possessed  by  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  As  for  an 


159 

advisory  council,  I  desire  a  closer  grip  and  a  deeper  sense  of  individual 
responsibility  and  common  obligation  than  such  bodies  usually  display. 
As  for  a  board  of  three,  there  is  much  that  persuades  one  toward  it.  It 
seems  to  make  for  efficiency.  It  is  easy  to  do  business  with  it.  The 
admirable  work  of  the  State  Hospital  Commission  of  three  suggests  it. 
But  the  Hospital  Commission  has  its  one  problem  of  the  insane ;  it  super- 
vises fourteen  state  hospitals,  one  psychiatric  institute,  and  visits  twenty- 
five  private  hospitals.  The  State  Board  has  problems  that  extend  over 
the  whole  range  of  dependency,  delinquency  and  mental  deficiency.  It 
supervises  775  institutions,  public  and  private.  There  must  be  latitude 
in  its  membership  for  experts  in  five  or  six  fields  and  for  men  and 
women  of  the  differing  religious  faiths.  Citizens  deeply  interested  in  one 
field  or  another  of  charitable  endeavor  should  be  enabled  to  gratify  the 
natural  desire  to  confer  at  first  hand,  not  with  subordinates  alone,  but 
with  responsible  members  of  the  board  authorized  to  declare  and  to 
explain  its  policies.  These  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  I  recommend  a 
larger  board. 

The  term  of  service  of  each  member  should  be  during  good  behavior.  Term  of 
Under  the  constitution,  members  are  always  subject  to  removal  by  the 
governor  for  cause,  an  opportunity  having  been  given  to  be  heard  in 
their  defense.  The  statute  should  provide  that  the  cause  should  be  stated 
in  writing.  The  Chairman  of  the  Hospital  Commission  is  in  office  during 
good  behavior,  subject  to  a  similar  method  of  removal.  Service  during 
good  behavior  will  mean  that  the  incumbents  will  have  time  within  which 
to  do  their  best  work  in  the  office,  which  is  something  that  cannot  be 
said  of  most  state  officers  in  view  of  their  short  terms.  It  will  also  mean 
that  there  will  not  be  such  frequent  opportunity  for  the  intrusion  of 
partisan  considerations  into  selections  for  the  office. 

If  my  view  is  sound  that  such  qualifications  for  membership  as   I  Appointment 
have   outlined   should  be   expressed   in  the   statute,   it  will   follow   that  a 
appointments  from  districts  must  give  way  to  appointments  at  large.    To 
require  in  each  case  the  best  available  expert  in  the  state  to  be  found  in  a 
given  judicial  district  would  be  not  only  to  impose  a  difficult,  if  not  impos- 
sible, task  upon  the  appointing  power,  but  would  in  the  end  lead  to  such 
appointments  as  would  defeat  the  object  sought.     I  am  so  convinced  that 
the  appointment  from  districts  is  unwise  that  I  would  abandon  it  for 
appointments  at  large  even  if  the  further  restriction  as  to  qualifications 
were  not  to  be  written  into  the  law.    When  the  first  statute  providing  for 


160 

a  State  Board  of  Charities  was  drawn  in  1867,  there  may  have  been  justifi- 
cation for  this  district  representation.  At  that  time  there  were  compara- 
tively few  institutions  subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  board.  The  board 
had  no  inspectors.  The  members  themselves  did  all  the  visiting.  When 
the  oldest  present  member  of  the  State  Board  was  appointed  there  were  so 
few  institutions,  even  in  New  York  City,  that  he  was  able  to  visit  them 
all  in  the  course  of  a  year.  Each  member  visited  the  institutions  in  his 
own  neighborhood  or  district.  It  was  a  long  time  before  the  members 
thought  it  would  be  safe  to  trust  visitation  to  paid  subordinate  inspectors. 
The  number  of  institutions,  however,  has  increased  to  such  extent  that, 
as  one  member  testified:  "It  has  become  impossible  for  a  member  to 
make  individual  inspections  unless  he  worked  all  the  time,  and  even 
then  it  is  almost  impossible."  The  inevitable  followed.  Inspectors  were 
appointed,  and  in  their  work  the  State  Board  necessarily  relies  in  the 
main.  At  committee  meetings,  inspection  reports  of  one  kind  and  another 
are  passed  upon  at  the  rate  of  one  report  for  every  1.22  minutes,  without 
allowance  for  a  large  amount  of  other  important  business,  including 
the  ratings  on  each  institution.  Few  of  the  members  are  able  to  visit  all 
of  the  private  institutions  in  their  own  districts.  Special  effort  is  made 
by  members  to  visit  in  their  districts  the  laggard  private  institutions,  or 
those  which  fall  lowest  in  rating.  One,  a  member  for  four  years,  had  not 
visited  any  of  the  sixteen  state  institutions,  and  excused  it  on  the  ground 
that  none  was  in  his  district!  Another  member  had  visited  15  to  20 
private  institutions  out  of  120  in  his  district  in  the  course  of  his  three 
years'  service,  and  did  not  know  even  the  names  of  several  of  the  impor- 
tant institutions  which  were  the  subject  of  weeks  of  controversy  between 
the  City  and  the  State.  Another  failed  to  visit  a  private  institution  in  his. 
district,  although  it  was  in  serious  difficulty  of  the  most  sensational  char- 
acter. 

The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  furnishes  proof  that  visitation- 
and  inspection  over  a  very  large  number  of  private  institutions  may  be 
efficiently  conducted  by  a  State  Board  chosen  at  large.  In  that  state,  the 
State  Board  visits  and  inspects  800  private  charitable  corporations  at 
least  once  annually,  as  required  by  law.  This  is  in  addition  to  its  state 
institution  inspections.  In  New  York,  the  number  of  private  institutions 
visited  and  inspected  by  the  State  Board  is  640. 

District  representation  on  the  State  Board  is,  therefore,  no  longer 
necessary  in  New  York,  nor  is  it,  I  think,  desirable.  The  principle  of" 


161 

representation  of  localities  finds  its  expression  in  the  legislature,  which 
creates  the  board  and  establishes  its  powers  and  duties  under  the  consti- 
tution. The  board  is  only  the  instrument  to  exercise  the  legislative  will. 
The  principle  of  representation  is  inappropriate  to  it.  The  old  district 
visitation  by  members  of  the  board,  and  such  as  still  remains,  is  only  a 
step  in  the  continuous  process  of  inspection  and  supervision  of  all  the 
institutions  in  the  state  which  should  develop  into  the  expression  of  a 
set  of  fundamental  standards.  District  representation,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
likely  to  narrow  the  horizon  and  thus  the  view  of  community  needs  in 
establishing  these  standards.  Visitation  and  inspection  of  private  chari- 
ties, in  cities  like  New  York,  must  be  carried  on  through  a  paid  staff, 
who  should  look  for  guidance  to  a  board  with  the  broadest  possible  con- 
ception of  the  service. 

The  only  states  in  all  the  Union  that  build  their  state  boards  of 
charities  upon  district  lines  are  Arkansas,  Rhode  Island  and  New  York. 
In  New  York  itself,  no  analogy  to  district  representation  will  be  found 
either  in  the  Prison  Commission  or  in  the  Hospital  Commission  or  in  the 
Public  Health  Council,  all  of  which  are  constituted  at  large. 

I  favor  the  payment  of  adequate  salaries  to  the  president  of  the  State  Salaries  for 
Board,  to  that  member  of  the  board  who  becomes  chairman  of  the  new  NinfeMem-e 
Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency,  and  to  that  member  of  the  board  who 
becomes  the  chairman  of  the  new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children.  I 
favor  a  continuation  of  the  present  nominal  compensation  for  the  remain- 
ing members  of  the  board.  In  other  words,  I  suggest  three  paid  mem- 
bers and  six  unpaid  members.  I  suggest  the  sum  of  $7,500  annual  salary 
for  the  president  of  the  board,  and  the  sum  of  $6,000  annual  salary  for 
the  chairman  of  the  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency,  and  the  sum  of  $5,000 
annual  salary  for  the  chairman  of  the  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children, 
and  in  each  case  the  sum  of  $1,200  per  annum  in  lieu  of  his  traveling  and 
incidental  expenses.  Precedent  for  these  salary  suggestions  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  chairman  of  the  Hospital  Commission  receives  $7,500, 
and  the  other  two  members  $5,000  each,  and  each  has  $1,200  in  lieu  of  his 
expenses.  The  Superintendent  of  Prisons  has  $6,000,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Health  $8,000,  and  the  six  other  members  of  the  Public  Health 
Council  $1,000  each.  The  Fiscal  Supervisor  has  $6,000. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  Fiscal 
Supervisor  would  eliminate  approximately  $55,000  from  the  annual 
salary  roll  of  the  State. 


162 

The  services  required  of  the  president  of  the  State  Board  and  the 
chairmen  of  the  two  new  bureaus  will  demand  their  entire  time.  There 
must,  of  course,  be  compensation  for  such  service.  At  the  rates  sug- 
gested, the  element  of  public  devotion  must  necessarily  enter  to  some 
extent.  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the  high  quality  of  volunteer  public 
service  that  comes  to  the  state  and  the  municipality  from  those  who 
would  not  otherwise  accept  office.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  men  and 
women  in  the  state  who  are  too  poor  to  give  gratuitously  to  the  state 
their  services,  which  may  be  the  best  and  most  expert  that  the  governor 
can  find. 

With  a  board  made  up  as  I  have  suggested,  I  see  no  likelihood  that  it 
could  be  called  a  "one  man  board",  except  in  matters  administrative  and 
executive,  as  to  which  the  plan  is  to  make  it  a  "one  man  board".  In  the 
past,  the  by-laws  of  the  board  have  imposed  such  powers  and  duties  upon 
the  paid  Secretary,  efficient  man  that  he  was,  that  it  was  generally  regarded 
as  a  "one  man  board".  The  Secretary  was  required  to  reside  in  Albany 
to  aid  the  commissioners  in  the  performance  of  their  duties,  to  complete 
the  text  of  the  annual  report,  to  be  the  medium  of  official  communications 
by  the  board,  and  to  supervise  all  branches  of  the  board's  work.  A  mem- 
ber of  the  board  testified  that  the  Secretary  advised  the  board  as  to  its 
policies  and  that  his  advice  was  usually  followed,  and  the  President  of 
the  board  called  him  "the  executive  officer  of  the  board".  If  one  man  is 
to  lead  the  board,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  it  would  be  better  that  he 
should  be  the  salaried  president,  giving  all  his  time  to  the  work  and 
responsible  directly  to  the  governor  rather  than  that  he  should  be  a 
paid  secretary  responsible  to  the  board.  But  beside  the  paid  president 
of  the  board,  the  plan  calls  for  two  other  paid  members  and  six  unpaid, 
a  strong  majority  of  unpaid  over  paid  members  in  case  it  should  become 
necessary  to  divide  upon  any  question.  In  explaining  why  the  board  has 
failed  to  do  what  it  should  have  done  in  putting  newly  authorized  state 
institutions  on  their  feet,  a  member  of  the  board  testified  that  he  thought 
such  work  would  take  all  the  time  of  a  "paid  man" ;  and  so  it  will,  or 
much  of  it. 

There  has  been  much  genuine  alarm  in  the  present  State  Board  over 
any  possibility  of  payment  to  them  of  substantial  salaries.  The  reason 
given  by  them  is  that  politicians  will  seek  the  office.  In  the  first 
place,  I  am  going  to  assume  that  the  executive  will  make  the  best  appoint- 
ments possible.  I  know  of  no  other  way  to  draft  a  plan  of  organization 


163 

of  any  department  of  government.  In  the  next  place,  if  the  statute  is 
made  to  specify  the  qualifications  that  I  have  suggested,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  fill  the  places  with  incompetents.  Finally,  I  call  attention 
to  the  related  departments  of  health,  hospitals  for  the  insane  and  the 
prisons.  Has  politics  crept  into  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Health 
or  the  Public  Health  Council?  They  are  salaried  offices.  Has  it  crept 
into  the  department  of  the  Hospital  Commission?  They  are  salaried 
offices.  Has  it  kept  out  of  the  prisons?  The  Prison  Commission  is 
unsalaried. 

In  the  constitutional  convention  of  1894  an  unsuccessful  effort  was 
made  to  write  into  the  constitution  the  provision  that  members  of  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  should  not  be  paid.  The  constitution  left  it 
open  to  the  legislature  to  provide  compensation,  although  it  was  specifi- 
cally warned  in  the  debate  that  the  legislature  would  do  so  and  that 
evils  would  flow  from  it. 

The  State  Board  of  Charities  built  its  case  for  an  unsalaried  board 
upon  the  proposition  that  in  1867  it  was  modeled  on  the  lines  of  what  the 
President  of  the  board  called  "the  great  Lunacy  Board  in  England". 
He  testified  that  "the  marked  features  of  this  were  a  high  grade  of  mem- 
bership serving  without  salary  and  freedom  from  political  influence". 
Another  member  of  the  board  said: 

"There  were  three  ideas  that  were  impressed  upon  me  by  these 
original  men.  The  first  was  to  remove  the  charities  as  far  as 
possible  from  political  influence,  and  to  do  that  we  must  have 
unsalaried  boards,  both  of  local  boards  of  management  and  the 
supervising  board;  and  that  is  the  way  the  great  Lunacy  Com- 
mission of  England  was  appointed,  which  was  regarded  as  the  most 
useful  commission  ever  created." 

The  State  Board  is  strangely  in  error  about  the  English  Lunacy  Board. 
A  great  board  it  certainly  was  and  has  been  ever  since  it  was  established 
in  1845.  But  salaries,  and  liberal  salaries,  have  been  paid  its  members 
ever  since  1845.  In  the  course  of  extended  reading  on  the  work  of 
this  English  board,  I  have  never  heard  that  it  was  affected  by  political 
or  partisan  considerations.  From  1845  to  1911,  the  board  consisted  of 
eleven  commissioners,  three  of  whom  were  medical  practitioners,  and 
three  of  whom  were  barristers  of  at  least  ten  years  standing  at  the  bar. 
These  six  commissioners  were  paid  salaries  of  £1,500  each  per  annum, 


164 

• 

and  in  addition,  their  traveling  and  other  expenses.  The  other  commis- 
sioners were  not  paid.  Their  terms  were  for  good  behavior  and  they 
were  named  at  large.  The  original  commissioners,  headed  by  Lord  Ashley, 
were  named  in  the  act.  In  1911,  the  board  was  increased  to  a 
membership  of  13.  In  1913,  as  a  result  of  four  years  deliberation  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  Mental  Deficiency,  there  was  enacted  the  Mental 
Deficiency  Act.  A  board  of  fifteen  members  at  large  was  provided,  to 
serve  at  the  pleasure  of  the  King,  of  whom  not  more  than  twelve  are 
paid.  Of  the  paid  commissioners,  four  must  be  practising  barristers  or 
solicitors  of  at  least  five  years  standing,  four  must  be  medical  prac- 
titioners of  at  least  five  years  standing,  and  at  least  one  of  the  unpaid  and 
one  of  the  paid  commissioners  must  be  a  woman.  The  chairman  of  the 
board,  named  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  receives  not  more  than  £1,800 
per  annum,  and  the  other  paid  members  £1,500  each  per  annum.  The 
board  has  visitational,  supervisory  and  broad  administrative  powers, 
including  the  power  to  administer  grants  of  money  made  by  Parliament 
under  the  act. 

The  English  Charities  Commission,  which  was  established  in  1853, 
but  occupies  a  different  field  from  any  that  is  familiar  to  state  boards  of 
charities  in  this  country,  consists  of  at  least  four  commissioners  appointed 
at  large  and  serving  during  good  behavior,  of  whom  the  Chief  Commis- 
sioner receives  £1,500  per  annum,  and  the  other  paid  commissioners 
£1,200  per  annum  each. 

It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  if  the  State  Board  of  Charities  is 
to  be  built  upon  the  lines  of  the  great  English  Lunacy  Board,  it  should 
consist  of  a  membership  at  large,  at  least  two  of  whom  must  be  women, 
and  nearly  three-fourths  of  whom  must  be  fully  compensated  for  all  their 
time,  instead  of  a  district  board  without  compensation,  as  is  the  present 
State  Board,  or  a  board  of  which  only  one-third  of  the  members  are 
compensated,  as  is  recommended  in  this  report. 

Two  charts  are  appended — one  setting  forth  the  present  plan  of  state 
administration,  and  the  other,  the  proposed  plan. 


165 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience,  I  shall  re-state  here  in  summary  form  the 
principal  recommendations  contained  in  this  report. 

I  recommend  a  reorganization  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 
Instead  of  an  unpaid  board  of  twelve,  appointed  by  the  governor  from 
districts,  with  eight  year  terms,  the  board  selecting  its  own  president 
and  without  qualifications  specified  in  the  law,  the  board  should  become 
a  board  of  nine,  of  whom  at  least  one  should  be  a  woman,  and  of  whom 
three  should  be  paid  and  six  should  not  be  paid,  appointed  by  the  governor 
from  the  state  at  large,  to  serve  during  good  behavior  and  removable 
by  the  governor  on  notice  for  cause ;  special  qualifications  for  member- 
ship to  be  described  in  the  law,  to  the  end  that  all  the  functional  activities 
of  the  board  should  be  discharged  by  persons  with  special  training  there- 
for; the  three  paid  members  to  be  the  president  of  the  board  and  the 
chairman  of  the  two  new  bureaus  within  the  board,  namely,  the  Bureau 
for  Mental  Deficiency  and  the  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children,  these 
three  members  to  be  designated  as  president  and  bureau  chairman,  respec- 
tively, at  time  of  appointment  by  the  governor.  The  duties  to  be  imposed 
upon  these  three  members  will  require  that  they  give  all  their  time  to  the 
service.  I  recommend  specification  in  the  statute  of  specific  qualifications 
for  certain  members  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities,  with  special  reference 
to  the  several  classes  of  state  institutions  supervised  by  the  board,  such  as 
a  penologist  or  one  skilled  in  the  reformation  of  the  delinquent;  an 
educationist ;  a  physician  with  special  knowledge  of  tubercular  diseases ; 
a  physician  who  is  a  general  practitioner,  with  special  reference  to  hospitals 
and  dispensaries ;  a  lawyer ;  a  physician  with  special  training  in  psychiatry, 
to  serve  as  chairman  of  the  new  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency ;  a  specialist 
in  the  care  of  children  in  private  institutions  and  in  foster  homes,  to 
serve  as  chairman  of  the  new  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children;  and  one 
generally  conversant  with  dependency  and  the  several  forms  of  poor 
relief. 

I  recommend  that  the  board  should  be  required  to  meet  regularly  at 
least  twice  a  month,  as  in  Massachusetts.  Under  the  present  law,  there 
is  no  requirement  as  to  the  number  of  meetings. 

I  recommend  that  new  administrative  and  executive  functions  should 
be  conferred,  in  order  to  convert  an  advisory  board,  weakened  by  loss 
of  power,  into  an  authoritative  supervisory  board.  This  should  include  the 


166 

« 

duties  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  in  fiscal  affairs,  surrendering  to  the  comp- 
troller such  of  said  duties  as  relate  solely  to  audit.  Provision  should  be 
made  for  such  institutional  records  as  will  exhibit  functional  costs.  With- 
out surrender  of  central  control  by  the  board  over  expenditures,  provision 
should  be  made  for  modification  of  the  procedure  of  estimate  and  allot- 
ment so  that  the  institutions  may  work  more  smoothly  and  with  greater 
initiative.  Other  new  functions  should  be  the  supervision  of  purchase 
under  joint  contract  and  the  review  of  building  plans  for  the  state  institu- 
tions. These  and  other  duties  of  an  administrative  or  executive  character 
should  be  imposed  upon  the  president  of  the  bo-ard  in  the  belief  that 
efficiency  in  matters  administrative  calls  for  a  one  man  service.  Upon  him 
also  would  fall  the  responsibility  for  executing  the  plans  of  the  board  with 
respect  to  institutional  development ;  for  promoting  new  institutions  after 
legislative  authorization  by  the  acquisition  of  sites  and  buildings  within 
the  appropriations  that  are  provided ;  for  developing  institutional  industries 
on  the  farm  and  in  the  shop,  to  the  end  that  the  institutional  service  may 
be  the  more  economically  administered ;  and  to  obtain  adequate  appropria* 
tions  for  extending  and  improving  the  inspection  service  over  public 
and  private  institutions,  as  contemplated  in  the  constitution  and  the 
laws. 

Pending  the  adoption  of  such  new  constitutional  provision  as  will 
permit  the  establishment  of  an  independent  state  department  for  the 
supervision  of  the  mentally  defective,  known  generally  as  the  feeble- 
minded, I  recommend  the  establishment  of  a  new  bureau  in  the  State 
Board  of  Charities,  to  be  known  as  the  Bureau  for  Mental  Deficiency, 
the  chairman  oi  which  is  to  be  one  of  the  paid  members  of  the  board, 
and  who  must  be  a  physician  with  special  training  in  psychiatry,  and  asso- 
ciated with  whom  is  to  be  a  new  unpaid  advisory  council,  named  by  the 
chairman  and  approved  by  the  State  Board. 

In  the  State  Hospital  Commission,  the  state  has  made  independent 
provision  for  the  supervision  of  the  insane,  who  furnish  no  graver 
problem  than  do  the  mentally  defective. 

I  recommend  the  restoration  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities  of  the 
power  to  review  building  plans  for  almshouses  in  New  York  City,  this 
power  having  been  taken  away  by  the  legislature  in  1913  and  placed  in 
the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment.  I  perceive  no  adequate  reason 
for  the  exception  of  New  York  City  from  the  procedure  obtaining  over 
the  remainder  of  the  state. 


167 

I  recommend  an  express  grant  of  power  to  the  State  Board  of 
Charities  to  adopt  rules  and  regulations  for  the  reception  and  retention 
of  inmates  in  state  charitable  institutions,  subject  to  the  laws  of  the 
state.  This  power  the  board  now  possesses  with  respect  to  private  insti- 
tutions. 

I  recommend  continued  executive  approval  of  the  report  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Civil  Service  and  writing  into  the  law  standards 
of  compensation  for  institutional  service. 

I  recommend  prompt  provision  for  a  new  institution  for  defective 
delinquents. 

I  recommend  for  adult  female  delinquents  care  in  public  institutions 
exclusively. 

I  recommend  periodic  conferences  under  statutory  regulation  among 
the  heads  of  the  three  great  institutional  groups,  charities,  hospitals  for 
the  insane  and  prisons,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  uniformity  in  salary 
schedules,  as  far  as  may  be  practicable,  and  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing what,  if  anything,  could  advantageously  be  bought  by  joint  purchase 
for  all  institutions. 

I  recommend  careful  revision  of  the  State  Charities  Law  and  the 
Poor  Law,  and  have  indicated  herein  certain  definite  results  that  would 
be  accomplished  thereby;  but  this  revision  should  await  the  determina- 
tion by  the  executive  and  the  legislature  as  to  what,  if  any,  new  form 
of  state  administration  shall  be  adopted. 

I  recommend  such  extension  as  there  may  be  under  the  existing  con- 
stitution of  the  visitational  power  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  over 
private  charitable  institutions. 

I  recommend  the  establishment  of  a  new  bureau  in  the  State  Board 
of  Charities,  to  be  known  as  the  Bureau  for  Dependent  Children,  the 
chairman  of  which  is  to  be  one  of  the  paid  members  of  the  board  and 
who  must  possess  special  training  in  the  care  of  children  in  private  insti- 
tutions and  in  foster  homes.  This  bureau  will,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  board,  develop  new  and  reasonable  standards  of  child  care  in  the 
institutions ;  promote  the  placing-out  of  certain  classes  of  children  in  the 
family  home;  make  uniform  the  institution  methods  of  placing-out; 
adopt  measures  to  lessen  the  mortality  rate  in  foundling  asylums,  such 
as  to  reduce  the  number  of  surrenders  of  infants  to  the  asylums  by 
mothers  who  could  be  aided  to  care  for  their  children  in  their  own  homes ; 
create  and  advance  new  measures  of  outdoor  relief,  in  order  to  preserve 


168 

for  children  their  natural  home;  persistently  stimulate,  by  publicity  and 
otherwise,  an  increase  in  financial  support  for  the  institutions,  both  from 
the  public  treasury  and  the  private  benefactor,  to  enable  the  institutions 
to  conform  to  reasonable  standards  of  child  care;  and  the  chairman  of 
this  bureau  will  aid  the  president  of  the  board  in  obtaining  appropria- 
tions needed  to  meet  the  imperative  demand  for  enlargement  of  the 
inspectorial  staff  of  the  board. 

I  recommend  that  the  State  Board  of  Charities  be  compelled  by 
statute  to  issue,  when  warranted,  its  own  affirmative  certificates  of  com- 
pliance by  private  institutions  with  its  rules  and  regulations,  said  certifi- 
cates to  be  a  prerequisite  to  payments  to  the  institutions  by  the  local 
disbursing  officers. 

I  recommend  repeal  of  the  charter  provision  requiring,  as  a  condition 
of  payment  to  the  private  institutions,  a  certificate  by  the  Department  of 
Public  Charities  in  the  City  of  New  York  that  the  institutions  have  com- 
plied with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities;  to 
the  end  that  inspection  by  this  department  shall  be  permissible  and  not 
impliedly  compulsory  as  it  now  is,  and  that  compulsory  inspection  shall 
continue  to  be  imposed  upon  the  State  Board  and  upon  that  board  alone. 

I  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  of 
State  Charities,  established  under  an  article  in  the  State  Charities  Law 
entitled  "Regulation  of  State  Charitable  Institutions". 

I  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  Salary  Classification  Commission. 

I  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  Building  Improvement  Commission. 

I  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  Commission  on  Sites,  Grounds  and 
Buildings. 

I  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  Board  of  Examiners  of  Feeble 
Minded,  Criminals  and  Other  Defectives. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

CHARLES  H.  STRONG, 

Commissioner. 
Dated :  New  York,  October  25,  1916. 


3461X 


C  35730 


M69 1 95 


Hv 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


